Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Transatlantic Air Routes

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): The United Kingdom tabled proposals in December, which would achieve substantial further liberalisation on transatlantic routes, further than anything that we have previously offered. It takes a phased approach offering immediate complete liberalisation of all United Kingdom-United States services, except those involving Heathrow and Gatwick, and offers real commercial opportunities at those two airports. I am disappointed that the United States Government have not been able to respond in a similar manner.

Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the apparent stalling by the United States Government gives the unfortunate impression that they are more interested in protecting their industries than in demonstrating a genuine commitment to airline liberalisation? Does he agree that it also appears that the United States is afraid

of competition from efficient British Airways and is unaware of the great benefits of liberalisation to the travelling public on both sides of the Atlantic?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that further liberalisation would bring great benefits—the benefits of further competition—for passengers on both sides of the Atlantic. I also agree that United Kingdom airlines are very competitive. I can only speculate as to why the talks have been postponed and it has not yet been possible to take them up again, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right. I am disappointed that the talks were postponed and I hope that the United States Government will recognise the real values and virtues of our proposals, which are serious, and agree to meet us around the negotiating table again soon to discuss them in greater detail.

Dr. Godman: Where does Glasgow airport stand in that scheme of things? It is a major employer in the area and there is burgeoning demand for transatlantic flights to and from Glasgow. I hope that the Secretary of State is arguing the case for that airport as much as for other airports south of the border.

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the improvements at Glasgow airport and of the considerable expansion there —not least since the British Airports Authority was privatised, which has greatly increased investment.

Dr. Godman: Now answer the question.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there have been big improvements since privatisation.
On transatlantic routes and the negotiations—sadly, there are no talks at the moment—the answer is that in December we proposed complete liberalisation of flights from Glasgow airport.

Mr. Channon: Am I to understand that the American Government are refusing to negotiate at the moment? Is that not extremely unsatisfactory and very much against the interests of air travellers? What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to break that deadlock?

Mr. MacGregor: It is very disappointing. There would be great benefits if we could reach a successful conclusion to the negotiations. We are in discussions with the United States Government in the hope that we can resume the talks as soon as possible. I have said that I would be prepared to go to Washington if that were likely to benefit the progress of the talks in any way.

Mr. Olner: I hope that the Secretary of State will put great pressure on his American colleagues, because his news will be greeted with great disappointment, especially at Birmingham airport. Our regional airports need that way into transatlantic routes. I hope that he will do all in his power to ensure that the Americans come to the negotiating table and that regional airports are not used as a bargaining chip for the London airports. I would not want him to miss that point.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we can to develop services at regional airports, including Birmingham. Representatives of those airports are on the United Kingdom negotiating team because they know the position and they can be sure that their voice is fully heard. I can, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.
As I said, I am disappointed, too. I hope that we can resume negotiations. It would weaken our negotiating position simply to give away valuable rights to United States airlines with nothing in return; therefore, we must consider the negotiating package as a whole and not give away parts of it in advance.

Swale Crossings

Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum traffic flows over the Kingsferry bridge on the A249; what was its design capacity; what are the traffic flows on a typical two-lane motorway; and what steps he is taking to speed up construction of a second crossing of the Swale.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): There are about 26,000 vehicles a day; design capacity figures are no longer readily available. The traffic flows are equivalent to 33,500 vehicles a day. The priority given to the Iwade to Queensborough improvement will depend on the outcome of the road programme review.

Sir Roger Moate: I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for the sterling work that they have done in bringing forward this project, even to the planning stage. Does he understand, however, that as up to 26,000 vehicles a day go over the single lifting bridge, the only means of access to the Isle of Sheppey, and as there was an electrical failure a couple of weeks ago, this is a transport crisis waiting to happen? Will he please try to ensure that the construction of the second crossing is a matter not just of local priority but of national priority?

Mr. Key: It is clear that the vast majority of people who replied to our consultation exercise are in favour of the scheme and wish it to proceed as swiftly as possible. Sheppey is an environmentally sensitive area, but the needs of industry and of the local population are also great. We shall have to consider the scheme in the light of those factors.

Rail Freight

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will initiate an urgent review of British Rail's proposals for increased use of the west London line for rail freight.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am asking Railtrack, as one of its first acts on taking over infrastructure provision in April, to examine the case for providing an alternative route for channel tunnel freight trains which avoids central London.

Mr. Soley: I hope that the Minister will take on board—I think that he is beginning to do so—the enormous and growing opposition from residents who live alongside the west London line. That opposition does not affect just my constituency, because the proposal to increase usage of the line to about one train every eight minutes, day and night, is seen as unacceptable in a residential area. If the current minimal use of the line is increased, people should be compensated when trains pass within a few feet of their windows. Concern is growing, however, about local authorities that are not financially equipped to meet that need.

Mr. Freeman: I hope that there is all-party support for the exploitation of the channel tunnel, for both passenger and rail freight trains. I am sure that the hon. Member shares my hope. My Department has recently agreed to consider requests from all local authorities, including those in London, for additional financial provision to contribute towards the erection of noise barriers. I answered another question recently from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) dealing with compensation issues.

Mr. Dunn: In the context of rail freight, is my right hon. Friend aware of the policy to involve private money in transport schemes, as advocated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Will my right hon. Friend speculate on how many extra freight trains would run as a result of that policy?

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps my hon. Friend refers to the document published today, which I have read with interest. I am bound to say that it is a consultation document, which contains no proposals. Meanwhile, the Government are getting on with introducing private sector capital to the rail infrastructure. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but I can tell him that, within the next few days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue the pre-tender qualification documents to invite private sector finance for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link.

Roads Budget

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of his Department's annual budget is currently spent on roads; and what proportion on public transport.

Mr. MacGregor: In the coming financial year, I expect roads to account for just over 50 per cent. of my budget and public transport for about 40 per cent.

Mr. Duncan: I confess that I am somewhat taken aback by that reply, because I was going to put in a special plea


for the Oakham bypass in Rutland. Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show that whereas 90 per cent. of journeys are undertaken by road, nearly half of his Department's spending is on public transport? Will he undertake to trumpet that statistic rather widely and use it to confound those critics who try to argue that the Government do not spend enough on public transport?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree. We are spending substantial sums on the road programme and on, I assure my hon. Friend, the bypass programme, which I know is widely welcomed. When we compare our expenditure with that made a long way back, it is clear that we are spending record sums on public transport. The fact that 40 per cent. of my Department's budget goes towards the equivalent of 10 per cent. of total journeys shows how much we are skewing it towards public transport. I assure my hon. Friend that I am determined to demolish the myth that the Government do not spend on public transport. Many statistics, including those on London Underground, prove that.

Mr. Harvey: Given the future balance between spending on roads and on public transport, will the Minister bear in mind the growing evidence of the connection between vehicle emissions and respiratory allergies? That evidence has come particularly from the Office of Science and Technology and the British Lung Foundation. Is he aware that 90 per cent. of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air comes from vehicles? Will he bear in mind that small children are among those most at risk because in urban areas they are at the height of vehicle exhausts? What steps will he take to toughen standards for vehicle emissions in urban areas? Will he put more money into public transport as an alternative to the motor car?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that 40 per cent. of my Department's budget is spent on public transport. The fact that 90 per cent. of passengers and inland freight goes by road clearly shows how much we are spending on it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support me in all the other measures that we are taking, such as insisting on catalytic converters, our drive for further improvement in vehicle emission standards and the programme to improve motorways, trunk roads and local roads. If we can remove congestion, we shall remove a considerable amount of atmospheric pollution. Our traffic-calming measures are also contributing to reducing that problem.

Mr. Matthew Banks: What proportion of my right hon. Friend's budget is being spent, and how much is it costing the taxpayer, to remove protesters from places such as Twyford down where protesters have failed to achieve their aim in the democratic process but now seek through public disorder and, in some instances, violence to achieve their aims? Is it not time that we spent that money on road safety schemes and public transport infrastructure in general, on which it deserves to be spent?

Mr. MacGregor: I take my hon. Friend's point. The cost to the public purse of security measures at Twyford down was £200,000 and the protest against the M11 link at Hackney has also cost a considerable amount. The important point is that there have been prolonged public inquiries into those schemes and others, at which everyone has had the democratic right to have his or her view taken into account and expressed. Decisions must be taken and it is a negation of democracy for a tiny minority of people to

hold up what the vast majority wants. Moreover, my hon. Friend is correct to say that the money could otherwise have been spent on environmental issues, such as planting even more trees and shrubs along the roads concerned.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as a result of the access charges announced by Railtrack last week, every part of the British rail network, including the vastly profitable east coast main line, will need subsidising by the taxpayer? What sort of triumph is that for Tory doctrines? Will he further confirm that, as a result of last week's announcement, the whole railway network will be charged those enormously inflated access charges indefinitely, whereas decisions on subsidy will be taken every year? In the light of that, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those inflated access charges will make the railway system appear to be far more heavily subsidised than it is and that, in the long term, those access charges represent the biggest threat to our railway network since Beeching?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants taxpayers' money put into the railway system to subsidise socially necessary lines. I hope that he will not condemn us for making it clear that we are continuing to do so. Had the hon. Gentleman done his homework, he would be aware that we are having the access charges accurately costed to reflect the cost of running the infrastructure. Until now, that has not been done. The costing will take account of depreciation and the proper return on capital so that we can get investment in the infrastructure.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the change that I announced last week will have no impact on fares or investment. He should look at the whole matter properly, as we are giving the system a proper commercial structure so that decisions can take account of the cost of different parts of the system.

Motorways

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of car owners frequently use motorways; and what proportion never use motorways.

Mr. MacGregor: In the summer of 1992, my Department carried out a number of surveys into the use made of motorways in this country. The results indicate that half the number of road users rarely or never use motorways and about 85 per cent. of motorway miles are driven by frequent users.

Mr. Thurnham: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to use new technology to recover the cost of motorways from those who use them rather than from motorists in general—not all of whom enjoy the undoubted benefits of motorways?

Mr. MacGregor: As the figures that I quoted show, a surprisingly high proportion of British motorists hardly ever use motorways. We announced our decision in principle to go for motorway tolling so that, at least in part, the cost of motorways would be met by the user. I stress the words "at least in part".
As to technology, I expect to announce later this week the first part of our research and development programme


on electronic technology, which I expect to be one of the biggest in the world. We expect interest from more than 300 companies in that research and development.

Mr. Barnes: If there were more buses and trains whose routes were interlinked, might not car owners leave their vehicles at home more often? Would not less money need to be spent on motorways and other roads, so that we could have a decent public transport system?

Mr. MacGregor: It is clear from the choice of individuals to drive on motorways, and of companies to transport freight on them, that many more people want the freedom to use their vehicles, and I must take that into account. The hon. Gentleman must understand that myriad types of journeys are undertaken on motorways every day, which involve joining them and leaving them at different points. It would be impossibly expensive to duplicate that flexibility with a railway infrastructure.

Ministerial Visits

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to south-west Bedfordshire to review the road-building programme.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Sir David Madel: In view of the ever-increasing congestion on the A5, will there be an early start on constructing the Sheep lane roundabout between Heath and Reach and Woburn? Also, can my hon. Friend give a firm date for the commencement of the public inquiry into the north-south Dunstable bypass?

Mr. Key: The Dunstable bypass must await my right hon. Friend's decisions on the road programme review. As to Sheep lane, we are examining the recommendation of the public inquiry inspector that there should be a roundabout at that point, but I cannot say when it will be implemented. I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend frequently expresses on behalf of his constituents, but I ask him to be patient a little longer.

Ms Walley: Does the Minister not realise that the road programme cannot be dealt with in a fragmented way? When will he and the Government get the message that Britain needs a transport policy? That cannot be formulated without a fundamental review of the roads programme. What account will the Minister take of the report, due out soon, on traffic forecasts? What criteria does he use to decide what is included in the roads programme, which he has never properly justified?

Mr. Key: An integrated transport policy means different things to different people, but that is exactly what the Department is producing. Since my right hon. Friend announced the decision last August, we have been undertaking a fundamental review of the prioritisation of the roads programme. The hon. Lady will not have to wait long to discover our conclusions. I announced last December—and I am delighted that it has taken only two or three months for the hon. Lady to notice—that we would review the fundamental methodology of road traffic forecasting.

Red Routes

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his future plans for red routes in London.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The pilot red route scheme in north and east London is to be extended to a 315-mile network throughout London. Detailed plans must be submitted to the traffic director by 24 June, and implementation will begin later in the year.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that too many people have tried to suggest that red routes are some sort of urban motorway? Notwithstanding some local difficulties, do they not bring great benefits?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour picked up on the idea of red routes, and tried to scare many people who live on such routes into believing that they are some kind of urban motorway. In reality, they have brought tremendous benefits to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, as well as to the motoring public generally. They are an extremely good thing.

Lorry Bans (London)

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his proposed changes to the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

Mr. Norris: I have received representations from hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament, noble Lords, London borough councillors, the London Boroughs Transport Committee, the Freight Transport Association and members of the general public.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that response. Can he confirm from the rich catalogue that he has just outlined that the only people in favour of the Government's proposals were the members of the Freight Transport Association, that the people of London have benefited hugely from the imposition of the ban and that, rather than lifting the burden from business, the Government's proposals to water down the ban will impose an extra burden on business, from which it thought that it had mercifully escaped?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his first point. The vast majority of those who wrote simply asked for information on what was proposed. They were not helped by the deliberate misinformation that was put about by the Labour party, as well as by Members of the European Parliament who stand in the socialist interest and who saw fit deliberately to distort our proposals, to create the false impression that we were in some way watering down the London lorry ban. Conservative Members very much appreciate the advantages that the ban brings. What they do not appreciate is the mountain of paperwork that surrounds the current Greater London council-inspired scheme. That is what will be abolished, not the scheme itself.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the ban will remain in place and that money will be saved by the deregulation to which he referred? What


compensation arrangements can be made for people living near the A40 in my constituency and in small roads whose homes are rattled by heavy lorries? Their numbers are increasing. That problem is of great concern to my constituents.

Mr. Norris: First, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the ban remains. Secondly, on the effect of the ban, it will remain the case that any vehicle that is not on an appropriate journey through central London will be committing an offence. It is that to which the scheme should always have addressed itself, rather than simply accumulating a mountain of paperwork. The savings will be about £400,000 to the scheme operators—funded by the hard-pressed council tax payers—and about £3 million to the business community, which will, of course, flow through in prices. As to the A40, I am afraid that I have to tell my hon. Friend that compensation arrangements do not generally take account of the increased use of an existing road.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that, without a permit scheme, a night-time and weekend lorry ban in London can be enforced only by regular and widespread spot checks, for which the participation of the Metropolitan police is essential? From where will the extra police resources come to do that? Unless he can give an assurance that he has the agreement of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the Home Secretary, to deploy extra police to enforce the ban, everyone will know that his claims about keeping it in force are simply hollow boasts, because in practice the scheme will be killed and millions of Londoners will be exposed to unnecessary noise, nuisance and disruption at night?

Mr. Norris: By abolishing the ludicrous paperwork that surrounds the scheme, some £400,000 will be available to the London boroughs transport scheme to increase the amount of on-the-spot enforcement that is carried out. I should ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can think of any other city—indeed, of cities that are controlled by Labour councils—that sees the need for such paperwork. He would think in vain, because not a single council in the whole of the United Kingdom, whether controlled by Labour or by Conservatives, uses that ludicrous typical GLC-Stalinist paperwork basis.

Mr. John Marshall: On behalf of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Enfield-Barnet lorry ban, the implementation of which will improve the quality of life of my constituents, and the implementation of which was delayed by the opposition of Labour councillors.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Enfield and Barnet have taken advantage of the opportunity that is available to local authorities to introduce lorry bans much more stringent than the scheme on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) appears so keen —24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week bans on all vehicles above 7.5 tonnes. They are useful schemes and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.

Train Speeds

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the speed of intercity rail travel in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) France.

Mr. Freeman: Speed of intercity rail travel varies according to route and the types of trains used. The fastest timetabled United Kingdom service is the InterCity 225 on the east coast main line between Doncaster and Grantham, which runs at an average speed of 107 mph; the fastest French service is the TGV Atlantique between Massy and St Pierre, which runs at an average speed of 153 mph.

Mr. Griffiths: What benefits of the British system would the Minister commend to the French?

Mr. Freeman: All British Rail's InterCity services—diesel and electric—are designed to run at fast speeds over 90 mph. If the hon. Gentleman makes inquiries, he will find that France operates a two-tier service—the TGVs, which are excellent, and the rest, which are not.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail has many more services that run above 90 mph than French railways? Does he also agree that we have the most extensive track network in Europe and that more people travel by rail in Britain than in France?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There seems to be a plot among those on the Opposition Benches to run down the quality of British Rail services—including a reference by the shadow Chancellor in the weekend press to the fact that trains from Waterloo to the channel tunnel terminal will run at 45 mph. That is not true. When the trains start in the summer, they will run through Kent at 90 mph.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recall claiming proudly that, following the opening of the channel tunnel, the train journey from London to Paris would take just three hours? Will he confirm that if the train travelled through France at the same speed at which it will travel through Kent, the journey would take not three hours but five hours 25 minutes—and those are the figures supplied by British Rail?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that trains must negotiate Southern region in the London area. No train could possibly run at 225 kph from the Waterloo terminal to the outskirts of London. I commend the train journey to all hon. Members—I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will be among the first to use the channel tunnel train service—and confirm that the trains will travel at 90 mph.

Wyre Piddle Bypasses

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Hereford and Worcester county council or Wychavon district council about the proposed western and northern Wyre Piddle bypasses.

Mr. Key: No such discussions have been requested. However, I discussed the bypass schemes with my hon. Friend last November.

Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, against the background of a rather disappointing transport supplementary grant settlement for Hereford and Worcester, there is very real pleasure among the residents of Wyre Piddle—a village which derives its name from the Piddle brook—at my hon. Friend's repeated reassurances that the northern bypass will be eligible for transport


supplementary grant? Does he recognise, however, that there is equal disappointment among those same residents and the residents of Pershore in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) that the western bypass, which is a strategic road, is not recognised as such by his Department?

Mr. Key: I am sure that there is not half as much joy in Wyre Piddle as the residents of Puddletown and Piddletrenthide in Dorset would feel if they could get their bypasses. As I explained to my hon. Friend, the northern bypass is on the A4538, which is a road of more than local importance in through-traffic terms. The B4083, which the proposed western bypass would relieve, is a secondary road linking Pershore and Wyre Piddle. I am none the less grateful for the continuing representations on behalf of the inhabitants of those delightful villages and will always be ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that progress on both the northern and the western Wyre Piddle bypasses —a matter of great concern to my constituents—would be accelerated if the Government adopted the imaginative policies presented today in the Labour party consultation document? Does he further agree that, were the Government not locked in their ideological straitjacket, in which they see things as just private or just public, we should have had progress both on those bypasses and on the channel link, which would not have been 10 years behind schedule as it is today?

Mr. Key: I have read that interesting fairy story. The bad news for the hon. Gentleman is that his party would slash road building of all kinds and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) would be terribly badly off, as they would be if we had the misfortune of any influence from the Liberal Democrat party.

Railway Privatisation

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits he expects to see for passengers as a result of his plans to privatise the railways.

Mr. MacGregor: As a result of the franchising of passenger services, I expect to see better services run more efficiently, better targeted to markets and hence to what passengers want and to which they will respond.

Mr. Martin: To dispel some of the many misconceptions put about by opponents of increased commercialisation in our railways, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be through ticketing and through timetabling under the new arrangements and that those arrangements will be sensible?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can confirm that. As we have made clear on many occasions, we have given a clear commitment that through ticketing will continue. The regulator will have a statutory duty to promote it. Railtrack will be responsible for producing a working national timetable for the railway and will be required in its licence to make arrangements for the publication of the timetable, if it would not otherwise be published by another party.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows that discounted tickets are of special concern to passengers and he also knows that it has become painfully clear, under the

schemes that have been carried out in other areas, that Ministers have no control whatever over the actions of individual companies after privatisation. Will he stop trying to mislead people who have the misfortune to need British Rail as it is?

Mr. MacGregor: I make it clear again that the operators will be required to participate in common ticketing and revenue allocation arrangements which are based at the outset on BR's current systems. They will therefore be able to offer through ticketing on much the same basis as at present, on a range of ticket and fare types.

Crossrail

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits Billericay will derive from crossrail.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's constituents will either travel to Shenfield to use the line directly, or will otherwise take advantage of reduced congestion on existing services. They will gain benefits in journey time savings and reduced overcrowding.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He should know that my constituents in Billericay who travel to Liverpool street each day are greatly looking forward to that new service, which I am sure, because it is largely privately funded, will set a new standard in the quality of service for passengers. Does he agree that the tube lines on which they currently make their journeys, especially the Central line, are grossly overcrowded and relatively underfunded? Does he agree that we should seek private capital funding for the tube system to improve that service, too?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's basic thesis is entirely right. When one has exhausted the investment that the taxpayer can prudently make—an investment which, under the Government, is four times the level of the best years of the Labour Government—and when one has exhausted that which is contributable by the farepayer, the only sensible and prudent course for anyone who is concerned to improve the system is to consider how the private sector can be involved. Of course, it depends on the particular circumstances as to how it can be accomplished. However, I am delighted about my hon. Friend's support for crossrail. It will be a useful and imaginative project which will allow substantial participation by the private sector.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am somewhat equivocal about any means of transportation that gets the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to the House of Commons quicker. Having said that, crossrail will be of great benefit to the whole of London. When can we expect crossrail to operate?

Mr. Norris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question is not connected to the fact that, as I recall, the train runs directly underneath his house. He has a more than passing interest in the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill which is currently before the House will have to complete its proceedings and I cannot anticipate when that may be. When the powers of the Bill are obtained, it will be for the private sector and the promoters to get together to develop a financable scheme. My view is that it will be such an attractive scheme that there should


be little delay between the obtaining of the powers and the start of works. If that were the case, we may be looking at the operation of a crossrail scheme in the early days of the next century.

Journey Statistics

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of journeys in the United Kingdom are made by road; and what percentage by public transport.

Mr. MacGregor: Some 90 per cent. of passenger and inland freight traffic goes by road.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interesting reply. Does he agree that many people in London are keen that we should have a good transport system for the public sector and a good rail network, not only for business, but for commuters and the general public? Does he further agree that only Conservatives believe in real choice in respect of public transport and the private use of motor cars, lorries and vans?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The figures are somewhat different for London. There is not only much more Government subsidy into public transport in London than to roads, but more journeys are made by public transport. As an indication of the Government's contribution to public transport in London, it is worth noting that, at the moment, the capital grant to London Underground amounts to £300 a year per regular tube user and the subsidy for Network SouthEast is more than £400 a year for the average regular user.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

NHS Trusts

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of NHS trusts.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission approved the National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1994–95 to 1998–99 in July 1993 and the estimate for 1994–95 in December. Those include provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine, certify and report on the summarised accounts of NHS trusts and other NHS bodies and to visit individual NHS bodies to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Department of Health and the NHS use their resources. Selection of topics for value for money investigation is a matter for the CAG in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Chairman for his answer. Will he ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff examine the forthcoming budgetary provisions and consider the proposals, which are now in the public domain, as they affect Guy's hospital? The proposal, about which the Chairman may have heard, would potentially considerably underuse a new building—Sir Philip Harris house—which has cost £140 million. I have referred the matter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who has passed it on to the CAG. Will the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission ensure that the Comptroller

is directed to look into that matter before a decision is made so that we are not considering waste afterwards, but preventing it in advance?

Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. However, I will draw the CAG's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the CAG and the National Audit Office are carrying out a review of Treasury management of NHS trusts.

National Audit Office

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effectiveness in terms of value for money of the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office corporate plan is considered by the Public Accounts Commission in July each year. It sets out NAO efficiency and performance overall and the impacts of NAO work. In 1992, bodies audited made 173 significant changes as a result of value for money recommendations by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee resulting in estimated savings of £204 million. National Audit Office financial audit work also led to wider improvements. In 1992, it recommended 208 significant changes in systems and controls which resulted in estimated savings of £34 million.

Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Chairman for that reply. However, how does that impact on the effectiveness of the NAO when it can report into an organisation, as it did in respect of the Welsh Development Agency, only to discover that the people who were found to be culpable were popping up in other public posts? For example, the discredited chief executive of the WDA subsequently ran the property department of the Further Education Funding Council on £46,000 a year. How can that possibly enhance the efficiency that the Commission is trying to achieve? Should not such reports include recommendations as to whether those people are fit to continue as public servants?

Sir Peter Hordern: That must be a matter for the PAC to recommend in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about any individual, he should refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The CAG is concerned with the control of public expenditure and departmental expenditure in particular, but not with what happens to personnel.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend ask the National Audit Office to make a cost-benefit analysis of the decision by the trustees of the independent living (1993) fund to exclude from support severely disabled people who are terminally ill?

Sir Peter Hordern: I shall look at that matter and write to my hon. Friend.

Public Money (Checks on Use)

Ms Lynne: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what consideration the Commission is giving to the extent to which the Comptroller and Auditor General can check on the use of public money once it has passed into private hands.

Sir Peter Hordern: The CAG's powers to check the use of public money are governed by statute. Where public money passes into private hands, the CAG's statutory powers are normally restricted to examining the activities and papers of the Department or agency issuing the funds. In some cases, the CAG also has rights to inspect the books and records of bodies receiving those funds, to ensure that the money has been spent as Parliament intended. Those inspection rights can be statutory as a condition of grant, or they can be built into contracts for services provided by the private sector. There can be advantages in doing so. The extension of the CAG's statutory powers is, of course, a matter for the House.

Ms. Lynne: I am grateful for that detailed reply. Does the Chairman agree that it would be better if the Comptroller and Auditor General could follow money through to its end use once it has left the Treasury, bearing in mind allegations about the Pergau dam? That would bring us into line with many other countries.

Sir Peter Hordern: There is a strong case for that. The PAC recommended it some years ago and I understand that the PAC and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee are now also considering it. It seems rather strange that the Audit Commission can appoint auditors who may follow every penny of public spending through local authorities and that the European Court of Auditors can do the same. I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friends and, when I have done so, I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Annunciators

Mr. Miller: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made for the installation of annunciators in the offices of hon. Members' staff.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A figure of £260,000 has been included in the works services estimates for 1994–95 to start design work for the parliamentary data and video network, which could include the provision of annunciators in the offices of hon. Members' staff. Use of that provision will depend on approval by the House of the report from the Information Committee recommending the final form of the network.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful for that reply. The House might be aware that, a fortnight ago, an annunciator in a room of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) caught fire. That might have been an act of God. Indeed, one hon. Member suggested that it reflects the powers in this place.
On a serious note, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that expenditure on annunciators will be in the context of the new technologies that he described and not of keeping antiques going beyond their useful life, at a risk to hon. Members' staff, hon. Members and, indeed, this building?

Mr. Beith: I believe that that point is fully appreciated by the House authorities. I expect it to be covered in the report which we shall shortly receive.

Smoking

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received regarding smoking in the Palace of Westminster; and what assessments he has made of the risks to persons and the fabric of the building.

Mr. Beith: In addition to questions from hon. Members, representations have been made by the trade unions. Although no specific assessment of the effects of smoking on individuals has been made, the House authorities are aware of the statutory requirements in that respect and of recent reports on the subject. The Accommodation and Works Committee recently considered a fire action plan, which includes a statement on the fire hazards caused by smoking.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the House should lead and not drag behind in public policy? Is he satisfied that progress will be made if it is left to individual Departments? Should not there be a co-ordinated approach, bearing in mind the fact, for example, that the Refreshment Department has only just implemented a ban to meet statutory requirements in food preparation areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced of the need for co-ordinated action to tackle the problem?

Mr. Beith: Considerable progress is being made. The Refreshment Department is one of those which, relatively recently, announced comprehensive changes of policy, which I hope meet some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I will ensure that the Commission is made well aware of his point.

Employment (Women)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of women employed in the House of Commons service.

Mr. Beith: Recruitment to, and promotion in, the House of Commons service is based on ability, qualifications and fitness for the work. There is no discrimination on any other ground.
An equal opportunities officer has been appointed to monitor the operation of the policy. In addition, a number of schemes have been introduced that take account of the needs of those with family responsibilities, such as career break schemes, part-time working, job sharing and holiday play schemes.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. I am sure that he, like me, is aware of the enormous importance of highly skilled and dedicated women to the running of this place, especially those in the background jobs. Does he agree that it is surprising that, as yet, only two Departments are headed by women—the Library and the Refreshment Department? I have observed that other Parliaments—in Australia, for instance—employ women as badge messengers. As a result of training over the generations, women are—if nothing else—very good at running after men to give them messages.

Mr. Beith: It must be obvious to all that women occupy not just important backroom jobs in the House of


Commons, but important front-line jobs. I regard the fact that two Departments are now headed by women, after a long period when none was, as a mark of progress. I shall, however, draw the attention of the appropriate authorities to the hon. Lady's recommendation about messengers.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the employment of women would be greatly facilitated if there were arrangements for child care in the House? He must be aware that the absence of such facilities limits employment opportunities for many women, especially those with young children and especially in view of our strange working hours.

Mr. Beith: I believe that child care provision would facilitate the employment of women in the House; whether my assumption is correct is currently being tested in a survey conducted by the Administration Committee, whose results we await. There are some practical difficulties connected with where such facilities could be housed which the Accommodation and Works Committee has often drawn to our attention. When we receive the results of the survey and the Administration Committee's recommendation, however, we may be able to take the matter further.

Visitor Services

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the House of Commons Administration estimate for 1994–95 in respect of services for visitors to the Palace.

Mr. Beith: Financial provision in the financial year 1994–95 for facilities for all types of visitors is contained mainly in the estimate for works services. It includes an initial sum of £250,000 for measures to improve access for the disabled, funds to improve the line of route and the provisional 'allocation of £50,000 for an additional souvenir kiosk. Other costs are borne on the administration vote, but cannot be separately identified.

Mr. Coombs: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the pent-up demand among visitors to London, who want to come into the Palace and view this major tourist attraction? Will he use his good offices in the cause of trying to develop a scheme that will enable those visitors to enter the Palace during the summer recess, when it is more or less empty, so that the House and the Palace in general can benefit from the resulting revenue? That revenue could accrue to help with improvements of one kind or another.

Mr. Beith: I have a great deal of sympathy with the general objective of creating more opportunities for visitors. The Library's education division organises school parties during the summer recess and there may be scope for extending that scheme; but responsibility lies with the relevant Committee rather than with the Commission. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the Committee's attention.

Disabled Visitors

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the estimate for improvement of facilities for disabled visitors to the House of Commons.

Mr. Beith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for warning me of the figure involved in his answer to question 35. Does he agree, however, that even following the expenditure of £250,000 facilities for the disabled visitor to the Palace of Westminster will still be extremely poor? Will he ensure that in future years, particularly the next financial year, provision will be much greater?

Mr. Beith: A specialised report on the subject by an architect with noted experience in the field is currently under consideration. When it has been considered by the appropriate Committees, it may help to guide the Commission about the extent of the further facilities that are needed, and can be accommodated, in a building which —unfortunately—was not designed with the interests of disabled people sufficiently in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Overseas Development Administration

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of the Overseas Development Administration.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission approved the National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1994–95 to 1998–99 in July 1993 and the estimate for 1994–95 in December. The funds enable the National Audit Office to audit the financial accounts of all Government Departments, including the Overseas Development Administration, and also to deliver about 50 major value for money outputs to Parliament each year. Selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money, including the Overseas Development Administration, but the final decision on whether to proceed with an investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

Mrs. Campbell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will be able to investigate fully the link between arms sales and overseas aid in cases such as the Pergau dam project?

Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Lady knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported to the Public Accounts Committee, but I understand that the Committee has not yet issued its report. The Pergau dam is also being investigated by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and it is for those Committees to report to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Voting (Time)

Ms Hoey: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much time was spent in voting in the House in the last Session.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): There were 402 Divisions last Session, which took on average about 14 minutes, giving an approximate time of some 94 hours spent in Divisions.

Ms Hoey: I thank the Lord President for that piece of mathematics. Is it sensible that, in this day and age, hon. Members spend days in a Session on voting procedures? Is not it time that we all looked at this matter more sensibly and came up with a system more like that which is operated in other parts of Europe, so that we do not spend hours hanging around this place late at night? Would not that allow us to get on with our proper business of running the country?

Mr. Newton: I sense some ingredients of an own-goal and also some squirming by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, whose recent practice has extended not only to unnecessary voting by any reasonable standards, but to voting against pensions increases in the interests of taking up time. Although I am certainly amenable to suggestions that might avoid such absurdities, the remedy at the moment is in the hands of others.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Government Back Benchers greatly value the fact that we are able to buttonhole and corner Ministers while waiting to vote in the Lobby and that we would greatly resent the loss of that opportunity?

Mr. Newton: Speaking as one who in his time has been buttonholed more than once, my hon. Friend's argument might be construed as supporting the hon. Lady, but I agree with him.

Electronic Voting

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will carry out a feasibility study into the use of electronic voting in the House of Commons.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Banks: May I point out to the Leader of the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) was talking about the time that is spent voting, not thy issues on which we are spending the time? Would not voting machines be one way of speeding up the voting procedure? Is not it about time that this place was dragged into the 20th century?
The Chamber is not particularly historic; it dates back only to the 1950s. Should not hon. Members have allocated places and desks where we could sit and write properly? From a personal point of view, one of the advantages of

having allocated places would be that I would not have to fight off the buttocks of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) every Tuesday and Thursday?

Mr. Newton: The prospect of moving to electronic voting would not command universal support, as has been made clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) advanced quite an important argument. I will say that the prospect of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) being replaced by an electronic bleep is quite exciting.

Early-day Motions and Written Questions

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce measures to allow hon. Members to table early-day motions and written questions when the House is in recess.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Barnes: One of the few avenues open to Back-Bench Members is tabling parliamentary questions for written answer and early-day motions. It is a useful avenue for those Members who are not Privy Councillors or Members of Parliament who have been here since the year dot. Why cannot that avenue be available during the increasingly long recesses so that we can push the interests of our constituents?

Mr. Newton: Both procedures are associated with the sittings of Parliament. It would be a large step to activate them while Parliament was not sitting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has put his proposals to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. If the Procedure Committee made such a proposal, of course we would consider it with care, but it is not something which I would want to do without careful thought and advice.

Legislative Process

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve the efficacy of the legislative process.

Mr. Newton: It remains my aim to achieve agreement on a balanced package of measures that can be brought before the House.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Leader of the House worried about the great increase in the number of statutory instruments? They have increased by at least 50 per cent. since 1979. Does not that greatly devalue the role of Back-Bench Members and degrade the quality of our democracy?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that it devalues the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, given the opportunities that exist to debate statutory instruments in the Standing Committees and the well-established convention —I know that there are some difficulties at present—from which we certainly would not wish to depart, that statutory instruments of sufficient importance are given time on the Floor of the House. I believe that that is a reasonable and sensible approach.

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. On Wednesday last, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) drew my attention to a document apparently circulating in this country, which I asked him to send to me. Having examined the document, I have decided to make a brief statement, making it clear that it would be a serious offence against Parliament for those addressed to do what they are urged to do.
The document, emanating from Jammu and Kashmir, is described as:
An appeal to our compatriots and their relatives in the UK
to
boycott consumer goods produced by industries located in constituencies of British and European MsP who allow themselves to be used by the ISI and its surrogates in their efforts to destroy our country".
The document lists the names of 16 Members of this House.
To attempt to intimidate a Member in his or her parliamentary conduct by threats of this kind is an undoubted contempt of the House. Fortunately, I have no evidence that any notice has been taken of the document and I trust that this will remain the case. I did, however, judge it appropriate to make this statement so that no one need be in any doubt about the seriousness of the matter.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I look for your help and assistance. Possibly, the matter is in your hands. I do not

know. We shall debate later today an new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on the subject of homosexuality. There is an amendment in my name—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I stop the hon. Gentleman there. His point of order relates to amendments in Committee, which are not my responsibility as Speaker. My very good Chairman of Ways and Means will be taking over in a moment. He is responsible for those amendments. I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold on until then.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I thank you very much indeed for the consideration that you gave to the document that was the subject of your statement. I am sure that your statement was much appreciated by all hon. Members, particularly those who were listed. Your comments will be heeded, I trust, in this country, in India and elsewhere. May I ask you to consider one further step which I think would be appropriate and important? Will you contact the Indian high commissioner in London to ask him to repudiate and condemn publicly the document and to ask him and his Government to use their good offices to bring the campaign to an end?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am concerned only with happenings in the House and the protection of Members of the House. However, I am sure that those at the Indian high commission—I know them well—will read our Proceedings and note what has been said.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

(New Clauses of which notice was given not later than 9 February relating to capital punishment and the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain)

Considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your advice and, perhaps, your assistance. We shall be debating later today a new clause, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire South (Mrs. Currie), on the subject of homosexuality. Also tabled, in my name and in the names of at least 30 of my hon. Friends is a new clause on the subject of corporal punishment. It is fair to say that, in the country as a whole, there is much more support for a debate on corporal punishment than for a debate on the other subject I have just mentioned.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The House clearly remitted that we should have a debate on capital punishment, but not a debate on corporal punishment. I am bound by the decision of the House, and the debate will be, as prescribed, on capital punishment.

Mr. Michael Stephen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The business motion that directed the Committee to consider parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill specified that any new clause relating to capital punishment should be dealt with. It did not direct the Committee to consider only those new clauses providing for capital punishment.
New clause 2, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), has been selected for debate. I tabled an amendment to my hon. Friend's new clause, and my amendment was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). My amendment, which has not been selected for debate, does not provide for capital punishment, but it relates to capital punishment in that it says that this is not the right way to deal with the murder of a police officer—

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I can read. I have given particularly careful consideration to his amendment, but have decided that it is outside the scope of the order of the House determining what matters might be considered in Committee today. The hon. Gentleman may well be able to deploy his argument in debating the merits of the new clause if he catches my eye.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Marlow: How would it be possible for the Committee to remit—as you, Sir, have said—that we

should have a debate on corporal punishment rather than one on homosexuality? The country as a whole is far more interested in the former than in the latter.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member. He knows that he has influence with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and could get them to remit an appropriate motion. As matters stand today, it is very clear that we must deal with new clause 2 and new clause 4.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I hope that this is a new point of order, and not one with which I have dealt already.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is a very quick one.

The Chairman: However quick it may be, it should be on a new subject. [Interruption.] Order. However senior the right hon. Gentleman may be, when I have ruled on a point of order the matter is finished. I must ask hon. Members on all sides to accept my ruling. If the right hon. Gentleman's point of order is a new one I shall be delighted to take it, but it appears that it is not.

New clause 2

PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER

'A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of the murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'—[Mr. John Greenway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to consider new clause 4—Punishment for murder—
'(1) Subject to the following subsections the penalty for murder shall be death.
(2) No person aged under 18 years shall suffer the death penalty.
(3) As soon as practicable following a sentence of death, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal shall be convened to consider whether the circumstances of either

(a) the commission of the offence or
(b) the offender

whether or not such circumstances were adduced in evidence at the trial, are such as would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment in place of the sentence of death.'

Mr. Greenway: It is a little more than three years since I argued during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the death penalty for the murder of a police officer. Since that debate, it is my understanding that, not forgetting the many atrocities committed against the police and security forces in Northern Ireland, eight police officers in England have been murdered. The most recent of those was only two weeks ago today, when Sergeant Derek Robertson was brutally stabbed to death by armed raiders at a south London post office in an ordinary residential district. Last October, PC Patrick Dunne was shot dead in Clapham as he responded to a routine burglary call. In March last year, Sergeant Bill Forth of Northumbria police was stabbed to death answering a call to a disturbance. Last week, two men were found guilty of his murder.
In June 1992, in my county of North Yorkshire and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), Special Constable Glen Goodman was brutally murdered by an IRA terrorist. His colleague, PC Sandy Kelly, was left for dead and his life was saved only by the miraculous work of local doctors. Detective Constable Jim Morrison was stabbed to death in central London. Sergeant Alan King was stabbed to death in east London. PC Duncan Clift was murdered in Northumberland and PC Robert Gladwell was killed in a west London hotel brawl.
Whatever view we take of the merits of capital punishment, there are three points on which I hope that all hon. Members will agree. First, we must pay tribute to the courage of those eight officers. Their bravery and that of their families should never be forgotten. Secondly, their courage is typical of that displayed throughout the police service in the United Kingdom. Many other officers have survived brutal and savage assaults in circumstances where their assailants were totally indifferent to their fate. Thirdly, I hope that we can also agree that the chronicle of violence and murder against our police officers is not acceptable. Hon. Members divide over what should be done about it.
Those of us who support the new clause believe that capital punishment for the murder of a police officer would reduce the number of police murders. Life imprisonment as a penalty has clearly not been a sufficient deterrent in those cases that I have outlined. But does it necessarily follow that the death penalty might have prevented those murders? If the life of just one of those eight officers had been spared by fear of the death sentence, would not the sanction have been justified? In the 1979 debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said:
I greatly envy the certainty of those hon. Members … who seem able to assert that the existence of capital punishment would not have saved even one life."—[Official Report, 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2118.]
We cannot be absolutely certain either way, and I have concluded that the general question about deterrence is impossible to answer definitively one way or the other.
The arguments on both sides are formidable. The death penalty will certainly not encourage murder and, on balance, common sense tells us that it is more likely to discourage it. Sadly, however, police officers were murdered when we had the death sentence. Although the number of such murders has more than doubled since the death sentence was abolished, it must be acknowledged that there is more crime and society is more violent.
It is, nevertheless, an incontrovertible fact that, when this country still had the death penalty, it was extremely rare for criminals engaged in the most serious robberies to he armed with guns or knives, lest, in the heat of the moment, a member of the gang panicked and committed murder. They knew full well what to expect in such circumstances. The threat of the death penalty would have a similar effect on some criminals today.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I also pay tribute to the memory of those dedicated officers who were murdered when carrying out their duty, including the police officer recently murdered in New Addington, Croydon.
If one police officer—or more—had been murdered as a result of the IRA atrocities in Birmingham and Guildford and the hon. Gentleman's proposal had been law, the people convicted would have been executed. However, since then they have been found innocent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no they were not"] Conservative Members may disagree, but the fact remains that the people convicted were released from prison. Does it not trouble the hon. Gentleman that men, and perhaps women, would have been executed for murders for which, in the general opinion of the public, they were not responsible?

Mr. Greenway: I am not entirely sure that the final part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is right. I suspect that, given what happened in both trials involving the Guildford case, the public—

Mr. Alex Carlile: What is this: trial by the Conservative party or trial by jury?

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned the Guildford case. I will deal with his other comment in a moment. He said that the majority of the public seemed to think that the Guildford Four were innocent. However, I am not entirely convinced of that and the fact that the police officers charged with perjury were found not guilty also leads me to that conclusion. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point about the miscarriage of justice in a moment. He is absolutely right—it is the key point which we must deal with in this debate.
I believe, as I understand do many Conservative Members, that the threat of the death penalty would have an effect on criminals today, as it did in the 1940s and 1950s—and I suspect, until it was discontinued—when criminals did not take guns and knives with them when they took part in crimes.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Greenway: May I continue, as this is important? I want to establish why we should consider the murder of a police officer separately from other murders. My theory is supported by the recent murders of policemen which I outlined, when the criminals very casually and cold-bloodedly calculated that they could use guns and knives to avoid arrest.
It is as if murderers are asking, "What have I got to lose?" That is the question which hon. Members must answer. Would the death penalty persuade, force or urge some of those violent criminals to think twice? I believe that it would and that is why I shall continue to advocate its availability to the courts.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I think that I am the only Member of the House who has ever appeared in a capital case—I have appeared in 17—and I am grossly against the death penalty. I do not believe that it has the slightest effect on the offender and it has another very bad effect. As the defending counsel, I am put on trial because, if I make a mistake, ask the wrong question or appear in the wrong way, the man may go to the trap. I, therefore, believe that the death penalty is evil and wrong in every way, and I have experience.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. and learned Friend makes his own point, but I am not sure that it was an intervention on my speech.

Ms Angela Eagle: The sentence of the death penalty is passed in many states in America and, unfortunately, it is regularly carried out. America is, however, one of the most violent societies in the western world. How does the deterrence effect work there? Why should it be any different here?

Mr. Greenway: America has a gun culture, which, thankfully, we do not have. I have already said that when we had the death penalty, even among the criminal fraternity there was not the gun culture or the knife-carrying culture of today.
I have conceded that the argument of deterrence can be formidable either way. We all have to make our own judgment on the balance of the facts as we see them. It is the current habit among the criminal fraternity to be armed with guns and knives, and to use them in such a cold, calculating way, which has convinced me that the death penalty would have a deterrent effect in some cases.
I know that many hon. Members will oppose the new clause—the hon. Member for Walsall, North has already made that clear—for fear of the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. When we previously debated the issue, the recent acquittal of the Guildford Four pub bombers was very much in our minds. That case persuaded many hon. Members, some of whom had previously supported the death penalty, that we should not take the risk of executing the wrong man. I understand that view and it is a matter about which we must rightly be concerned.
The Runciman royal commission has made important recommendations to improve our criminal justice system specifically to deal with miscarriage of justice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given his intention to implement change and he is consulting on what needs to be done. I am sure that he will want to say more about that today.
We must build on the significant improvements made to our criminal justice system in recent years. Nothing could be more important than the need to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring in the first place and to deal more speedily and effectively with appeals. The implementation of such arrangements is crucial to any reintroduction of capital punishment for murder generally.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the question of deterrence, would he care to cast his mind back to the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1947? His family is still contesting that sentence, which I regard as an obscenity. If the deterrence theory worked, why were there any more murders of that kind? As the hon. Gentleman has been so generous in giving way, will he also consider the case of PC Blakelock who was murdered on the Broadwater Farm—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. An intervention, by tradition, is a single question. We have only three hours for debate.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the Blakelock case, which I intend to deal with in a moment, because we have different views on it.
The case of Derek Bentley happened a long time ago. I accept that the murder was committed at the time when we had the death penalty. As I understand it, the case was particularly difficult because the person who committed

the murder was under 16 years of age. He, therefore, could not suffer the death penalty, as would be the case under my new clause. I am surprised that anyone could suggest that Derek Bentley was not engaged in a serious crime. I, therefore, do not believe that that case is a valid argument of a miscarriage of justice. It may be fair to suggest that, in those circumstances, someone in Bentley's position either should have not been found guilty of murder by the jury or should not have suffered the death penalty. But such a miscarriage of justice does not undermine the argument in favour of the death sentence.
The implementation of important improvements and reforms in our criminal justice system and how we deal with miscarriages of justice are crucial. The same improvements would help to prevent miscarriages of justice involving the murder of a police officer. Such miscarriages of justice, however, are rare and exceptional. The hon. Member for Erdington mentioned the only two exceptions in modern times. The acquittal of the Tottenham Three—Winston Silcott, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite—for the murder of PC Blakelock during the Broadwater Farm riot of 1985 was the second case that he mentioned. Silcott remains in prison convicted of another murder. Opinions vary on whether he was responsible for PC Blakelock's death.
The Committee must face up to this question: if Silcott and his accomplices did not kill PC Blakelock, who did? My impression is that the police remain satisfied that they got their man, but accept that the administration of the case was not all that it should have been.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the Committee that it would be right to execute people in a case where—I use his words —"opinions vary"? If so, it is a preposterous proposition.

Mr. Greenway: I am not putting that proposition to the Committee. I am saying that I understand that Winston Silcott was acquitted on appeal because there were serious shortcomings in how the police administered the case. Had that evidence been available to the jury during his trial, Silcott might have been acquitted and not found guilty. That issue is separate from whether any of us think that he was responsible for PC Blakelock's death. Having talked to the most senior Metropolitan police officers, my impression is that they are satisfied that they got their man, but recognise that a lot must be done to improve the administration of cases.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that he could apply the same argument the other way round, to the administration of the defence in a murder trial?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend puts his finger on a point which I thought about mentioning in my speech, but decided that it would be a red herring. I believe that the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is introducing through the Bill will have both those effects. How the defence must conduct its case, as well as how we deal with prosecutions and, eventually, miscarriages of justice, are all important reforms recommended by the Runciman commission.
Some people will argue that, as with the detection and prosecution of all serious crime, the police face enormous pressures to secure a conviction. The police are the first to accept that there has been malpractice in the handling of


some cases, and chief officers are determined to stamp that out. Considerable progress has already been made to that end.
However, when a police officer is murdered, it must be right to question what possible benefit there could be to the police service to convict the wrong man. The police have a vested interest in ensuring that the right man is caught and convicted, although that must be done within the proper rules of conduct and evidence. Otherwise, the true killer will remain at large and ready to strike and kill again at any time.
I remind the Committee that, only last week, James Hurley—who was gaoled in 1989 for his part in the murder of PC Frank Mason—attacked a prison officer while escaping from a prison bus. Hurley should never have been given that chance. I am not referring to the adequacy of the security arrangements for Hurley's transfer to Wandsworth or why he was transferred so early in his sentence.
Evil men who show utter contempt for the lives of serving police officers deserve to pay for their horrific crimes by forfeiting their own lives. If we do not reintroduce the death sentence for murders of policemen, what alternatives are there?
4 pm
An amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), which has not been called, has much to commend it. Although my own preference is the death sentence, the next best alternative would be to provide in law for those who murder police officers never to be released from prison. Perhaps the best for which we can realistically hope is that they serve a minimum of 30 years. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider that proposal.

Mr. Terry Dicks: It would cost a fortune.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend points out that such an option would cost a fortune. I made it clear that I am in favour of the death sentence, but I am discussing alternatives.
Much more could be done to improve the protection given to police officers through the standard issue of protective clothing and side-handle batons. I raised both possibilities in an Adjournment debate more than two years ago—which, not surprisingly, was not as well attended as this afternoon's debate. I highlighted a number of recent savage assaults on police officers—at least two of whom owe their lives to the skill of doctors and surgeons.
Although protective clothing and side-handle batons would be welcomed by police officers, would that be enough? If the Committee rejects new clause 2, another consequence would become ever more likely—the routine arming of the police. I reluctantly reached that conclusion when we debated the issue three years ago, and subsequent events have made that prospect virtually inevitable. I understand that that view is being advanced by the Police Federation.
When police officers rush to the scene of the crime—as did Sergeant Robertson just two weeks ago—they have no way of knowing whether the criminals are armed or the immediate danger that confronts them. I have reminded the House of my own experiences as a police officer in London in the 1960s. In such a situation, police officers do their best to protect their colleagues and the public. In doing

that, they give the criminal the benefit of the doubt. Tragically, some police officers pay a heavy price for doing so.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of younger members of the Police Federation feel that the time has come for police officers to be routinely armed? If that were to happen, and police officers used firearms in situations such as that confronted by Sergeant Robertson, could not innocent bystanders also lose their lives?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He gives another reason why, on balance, I favour the restoration of capital punishment.
I began by suggesting that the Committee might at least agree that the number of police murders is not acceptable. If it takes that view, doing nothing is not an option. Tonight, the Committee will vote on two important issues of conscience. In the debate on the age of consent for homosexuals, I shall vote in favour of its being reduced to 18 and against a reduction to 16. However, many members of the public question our priorities when—as seems likely —we give in to the homosexual lobby, but do not have the guts and courage to answer the demands of the police service, by giving police the protection that they need and deserve. In my judgment, that must mean the death penalty for the murder of a police officer. I urge the Committee to support new clause 2.

The Chairman: Before I call any other hon. Member, I make the plea that that is a short debate of only three hours. The Chair has a very long list of hon. Members wishing to contribute. Therefore, I ask, please, for short and concise speeches.

Mr. John Gunnell: The debate is not about the respect that we have for the police, and for their courage; nor do our views differ on police murders. The fact is that they are vile and we must do what we can to stop them. The debate is about capital punishment. We must decide our view on that. We will all be in support of the police. Having been the leader of an authority that was a police authority, I am naturally well aware of the many situations where the police put themselves in great danger. Our debate is about what is the proper punishment.
I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that capital punishment is evil. For me, it is not only morally indefensible, but is irrelevant as a deterrent. It is inexcusable as a punishment in its irrevocability and is insidiously damaging to any society that practises it. As one who has followed from outside the consideration that the House has given to this issue over many years, from the pioneering days of Sydney Silverman, I applaud the sanity of hon. Members in rejecting clauses and amendments of similar effect to this, time after time, over more than 20 years. I count it a privilege to be able to speak and vote against these new clauses.
I take seriously the message that the Chairman has given and shall speak briefly on only two issues. I shall first deal with an issue that has already been discussed—miscarriages of justice. Since the issue was last debated in the House, a considerable number of miscarriages of justice have been revealed. Whether the increase is simply in line with the increase in crime or reflects on occasions


the pressures that are on the police to find a solution, any miscarriage of justice—we have seen a spate of them—destroys the case for a final solution for the individual concerned.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is talking about miscarriages of justice, but is not it also a great injustice that, in far too many cases, convicted murderers are released on to the streets and go on to commit another murder? Since 1965, there have been 71 such cases. Surely, if the death penalty had been introduced, those people would be alive.

Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that because some people have been released—from subsequent events, it is clear that it would have been far better had they not been—it is reasonable to allow some people who are innocent to be put to death. I cannot accept that argument. I shall give two names from my county area where there have been miscarriages of justice: Stefan Kiszco and Judith Ward. In each case, it is absolutely clear that their convictions were based on confessions. In each case, those confessions were not the truth.
As a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, I believe that, by ending the right to silence, we are increasing the probability of false confessions and their consequences. Kiszco was kept for a long time without access to a solicitor; we are not insisting on a solicitor having to be present for silence to be cited later.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have never understood the right to silence, which which was compulsory in both countries until 1892—

Mr. John Greenway: 1898—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: 1898. It has always seemed to me extraordinary that every person on earth, whoever he was and wherever he lived, could be compelled to give evidence, except the person whose evidence was vital—the accused. I have always regarded the right to silence as both idiotic and wrong.

Mr. Gunnell: I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—and in the Standing Committee we argued logically in favour of an alternative way of dealing with the issues.
There is no doubt that the ending of the right to silence will in many cases lead to confessions that may not be accurate. Judith Ward had mental problems. That would mitigate her silence in some circumstances but not in others.
It is ironic that a royal commission set up because of public concern at incorrect verdicts should recommend a procedure to reduce their effects which has been ignored in favour of procedures that diminish the suspect's rights—procedures that some wish today to cap with an irrevocable punishment.
I believe that restoring judicial murder—because that is what capital punishment is—would degrade our national life. If we legalise killing, we are agreeing that the taking of life is necessary in some circumstances. How can we stop people deciding those circumstances for themselves —deciding that what they have done to another person is appropriate given that the state is making similar

decisions? How can we expect young people to grow up with an abhorrence of murder if they see murder carried out by the state?
In the years since the last execution took place, the nature of media reporting has changed so much that, although we do not envisage executions ever being shown live on television, every member of the family, every friend and every colleague of the person who is to be executed—and every person nearest to the case—is likely to be pestered and even paid for interviews. Through the media, and the interest that they now show in such events, the nation as a whole would experience the real horror of it all—and that, I believe, would be degrading to the nation.

Mr. Michael Lord: At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that the new clause was all about punishment. Some of us believe that it is both about punishment and about deterrence, and that if one deters, one does not need to punish. However offensive capital punishment may be to the hon. Gentleman, will he not admit in his heart that criminals would be less likely to carry guns and knives if it existed?

Mr. Gunnell: In my heart, I believe that the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is completely wrong. If the hon. Member considers the statistics from the United States, he will find that those states in which the death penalty has been reintroduced have higher murder rates that those in which it has not been reintroduced. There is no evidence that it is a deterrent. I said that it was irrelevant because I believe, not only in my head but in my heart, that it has no effect as a deterrent and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. There is no reason to think that those who may consider murdering a policeman would take account of a death penalty being in existence. There is no evidence of that from any country where the death penalty is used. What is more—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gunnell: Many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude. If the precedent of other legislation is a guide, given the difficulties that we would have in returning to a system in which capital punishment is used, and given that I understand that there is only one gallows remaining—in Wandsworth prison—the process would be likely to go out to tender.
After all, we have already provided for private secure units, private prisons, private escorts and private prison ships. No doubt, with no facilities available nationwide, putting it out to tender would be the economic option. Judging by their faces, some hon. Members think that that is unthinkable and that it could not possibly happen. If they believe that, I suggest they consider what the Foreign Secretary said about private prisons in 1987 when he was Home Secretary. They will see how the climate has changed over the past six years.
Capital punishment is an obscenity, it is ineffective and it would be damaging to the well-being of the nation. I hope that many hon. Members will join me in opposing it.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: In speaking to my new clause 4, I have no hesitation in beginning where I left off when we previously debated the matter in the House in 1990. At the end of that speech, I said:


It is high time that we as Members of Parliament came down from our ivory towers, did what the people of Britain want us to do and supported the reintroduction of the death penalty"— [Official Report, 17 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 103.]
My postbag suggests that nothing has changed. In fact, there is more and more support throughout the country for that action. Certainly, my resolve is strengthened. The number of vicious murders has continued to increase. The number of horrific murders, especially of elderly people in their own homes, has continued to increase. The people of Britain want some action to deter murderers and they want to see the House take action. They clearly want the reintroduction of the death penalty.
Every test of public opinion in recent years has clearly demanded the return of the death penalty. According to polls that have been conducted over recent years for national newspapers and for radio stations, a steady 90 per cent. of the large samples interviewed supported the substance of the measure. The strength of feeling in constituencies, not only in Yorkshire, but throughout the country, has not altered and does not alter. There is a strong feeling that the death penalty would act as a deterrent. I firmly believe that it would.
However, I do not believe that Members of Parliament are delegates because we are not. The House and we as Members should reflect public opinion. Certainly, the mass of public opinion at the moment is that people want action, they want change, they want a deterrent to murder and they want the death penalty reintroduced and available to the courts to deal with all murders. The new clause asks for the death penalty not only the murderers of policemen, but for all who commit murder. It has never been clear to me why the House continues to ignore such public opinion. Of course, the measure is a matter of conscience and we shall be debating another one later today.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Would the hon. Lady agree that public opinion tends to vary from case to case and from time to time? At the grand old of 46, I am old enough, as she will be, to recall when there were regular hangings in this country and the majority of public opinion was against the death penalty. That occurred after it was discovered that we hanged Timothy Evans by mistake, after the Craig and Bentley case and after the hanging of Ruth Ellis. I am old enough to remember that. Public opinion can be swayed quite easily by a sufficiently ruthless and unscrupulous campaign. As the hon. Lady rightly said, we are not delegates: we are here to exercise our judgment.

Mrs. Peacock: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt if he catches your eye, Mr. Morris, he will be able to develop his argument further. However, I am not responding to a knee-jerk campaign. I have held my view for many years and it has never changed. My postbag is not part of a campaign. It comprises letters from people of all ages around the country, many of whom remember when we had capital punishment and who wish it to be reintroduced.
I believe that capital punishment should be available to the courts to deal with all categories of murder. Beating an old lady to death in her own home, as happened in my constituency three or four years ago, or killing a policeman on duty, are equally abhorrent and they are both murder.
In a proven case of murder, it would be the duty of the court to pass the death penalty. However, I know and appreciate that many murders are carried out in domestic

circumstances. Many murderers know their victims and many victims know their murderers. New clause 4, with its referral to the Court of Appeal immediately after the passing of the death sentence, would take such details into account.
For that reason, all proven cases following the death sentence should pass immediately to the Court of Appeal; not in one year, two years or three years, but immediately. It would then rest with the guilty person and that person's lawyers to convince the Court of Appeal that the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. In that regard, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and I believe that life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment.
New clause 4 meets the demands of the majority of people in this country—certainly, the demands of the people who have taken the trouble to write to me over the past 10 years. They want the death penalty available for murder.
My new clause also provides a formal safety net to deal with murders in the domestic environment and it provides a further net for those who carry out horrific and sadistic murders. I am often accused of a knee-jerk reaction. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) suggested in his intervention that this was some kind of short-lived campaign. I have always held the view and I would not be speaking in support of my new clause as part of a knee-jerk campaign. I have always believed that we should have the death penalty.
Some people argue that the absence of capital punishment in this country is a mark of a civilised society. I believe that we are rapidly becoming uncivilised. Some of the things that happen on our streets and in people's homes certainly do not constitute civilised behaviour. Action must be taken to arrest that dangerous trend.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend said that the final decision would be taken by the Court of Appeal, but does not the final final decision rest with the Home Secretary? Would that not be the most horrendous decision for any person to have to take?

Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend is right. Traditionally, the final decision would be taken by the Home Secretary. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and is listening to the debate. The final decision would be his. That is the Home Secretary's responsibility and part of his duty in the job and office that he holds.
During the debate, we shall no doubt hear many figures about crime and punishment. Figures can be made to say many things. However, the figures reflect the general increase in the level of crime, particularly vicious crime such as attacks on elderly people in their own homes.
The deterrent effect of capital punishment cannot be proven by statistics. Over the weekend, I was asked how I could know that capital punishment would be a deterrent. I replied with a question: "How do you know that it wouldn't?" If we do not have capital punishment on the statute book, how can we collect statistics to show that it is or is not a deterrent? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, if we have a deterrent, we probably do not need the punishment. My hon. Friend is right. Many young thugs would think twice about going


armed for burglary. They would also think twice about carrying a knife to the pub on a Saturday night and using it in the heat of the moment in a punch-up outside.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that statistics can show only the number of people who have not been deterred? There is no way in which statistics can show the number who have been deterred. Therefore, it is impossible to know from statistics how many have been deterred, so it is useless to attempt to rely on statistics. Instead, we must rely on common sense.

Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend is right. Statistics cannot prove who would be deterred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said when he talked about the killing of policemen, it is well known that in the late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, criminals would not take a younger new member with them until they had made sure that that individual was not armed, in case he decided to use a weapon in the heat of the moment. They had a policing system of their own because they knew that if somebody was killed there was the death penalty for it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend has picked up the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member of Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) about not being able to prove statistics. Will she reflect on why the murder rate in England and Wales is one third of that in Scotland and why it is virtually the lowest in the European Community? There must be many things that we do right in this country.

Mrs. Peacock: I am sure that there are. I cannot say that I have studied the figures for Scotland and compared them with those for England and Wales, but I am sure that if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Morris, he will develop that argument very well.
In such debates, we always hear a great deal about what should or should not happen to murderers, but very little about the victims, their families and the effect that such a traumatic happening can have on them, often for the rest of their lives, particularly when children are involved. The tragedy of murder and its influence on families is not sufficiently considered. We must consider it more. We have a responsibility and a duty to look carefully at that side of the debate.
The whole country is tired of horrific murders and expects Parliament to take the lead in dealing with the situation. The criminal law as it now stands no longer provides a credible sanction for the most heinous form of wrongdoing. The Committee will surely agree that action must be taken. We cannot resist the majority for ever. The majority in this country want the return of the death penalty, so we should help to provide it by voting for the new clauses.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Already, it is clear that this is an issue in which belief will be rather more significant than evidence or logic. I understand the case that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) makes on behalf of police officers, but I find it very difficult to justify that case compared with, for example, the position of sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses in obscure post' offices in rural constituencies such as mine. Experience after 1957 suggests that if we try to create categories to which capital punishment applies there will

always be cases that fall on the edge of a category and which test the whole notion of capital punishment for a certain group. For example, the words
in the execution of his duty
appear in new clause 2. Those words are capable of more than one judicial interpretation. I therefore believe that our experience of capital punishment should lead us to the firm conclusion that we are either in it completely or out of it completely.

Mr. Shersby: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: I should like to make progress, if I may.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said with conviction that life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment. She must bear in mind that it is not the decision of the legal system whether a convicted murderer is released on licence, but the decision of the Home Secretary of the day in England and Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland. Those are administrative decisions and they are difficult decisions, but let us be clear that they are made by those who have to answer to the House of Commons. It is clear also that the issue we are discussing is most likely to be joined on the question of the principle. I start with the unshakeable conviction that human life is sacred, that to take human life is immoral and that it is as immoral for the state to take human life as it is for any individual to do so. Such a belief, however, cannot arise through chance or inspiration; it must be the product of influences.
I began my professional practice at the Bar in 1968, after abolition. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), I have no direct experience of capital murder cases. However, I have talked to people with such experience—as either counsel or judges—and I have found no enthusiasm for a return to capital punishment among those people. I myself have prosecuted successfully some who would undoubtedly have been hanged, and I have defended unsuccessfully others who would have suffered the same fate. Nothing in my experience, during those years of practice at the Bar, has persuaded me that restoration would be justified.
4.30 pm
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) made a number of references to public support. I believe that she is right to the extent that there is substantial public support in the abstract, but I doubt very much whether that support would survive the experience of any part of the administration of justice leading to capital punishment. Once people had understood the horrors of the means by which capital punishment was carried out, and had become aware of the strain on jurors and witnesses, I very much doubt whether public opinion would remain as implacably in favour of restoration as it apparently is now.
I can think of no other civilised society that has restored capital punishment. So far, the debate has been notable for the absence of evidence to suggest that any society that has felt it necessary to restore capital punishment has been able to reduce the number of murders by that means.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Following the reintroduction of capital punishment in the United States, there is evidence that the number of murders in Florida has been reduced.

Mr. Campbell: The United States does not reintroduce capital punishment; individual states do so. As much


evidence can be produced on one side as on the other. That is the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale—the deterrence argument is entirely inconclusive.

Mr. David Ashby: No state in the United States has reintroduced capital punishment. What has happened is that, for years and years, people have suffered the degrading experience of not knowing whether they will be executed the next day, the day after that or the day after that; then the authorities started to execute a few of them. That is the inhuman thing that has happened, and is happening, in the United States.

Mr. Campbell: I remember the example of Mr. Caryl Chessman, who spent 14 years on death row. It could be argued that that was caused by a defect in the American system—or, rather, the state system—to which he was subject, in that he was provided with the opportunity for appeal after appeal. The hon. Gentleman is right, however —what could be more inhumane or degrading?
A fundamental issue has not yet been mentioned. Whatever the intrinsic merits of capital punishment, the passage of nearly 30 years since it was last carried out must be a compelling factor against restoration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] As has been pointed out, after 30 years we have no sets of gallows, and no magistrates whose duty is to stand and supervise. We do not have the administrative arrangements. All of that has been swept away. Is it to be restored?

Mr. Nick Hawkins: What we have had during those 30 years is a vast increase in the incidence of violent crime. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept that the reintroduction of capital punishment would deter violent criminals?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member for Ryedale made it clear that the deterrence argument was inconclusive. The onus rests on those who advance that argument, and who want change, to demonstrate that capital punishment is the only way to deal with the upsurge in violent crime. I believe that the fear of apprehension and conviction is a more significant factor in deterring people from the commission of a crime than the particular penalty which may follow.
Running through this debate is always the implication of retribution. I understand the motive for retribution. If any member of my family were to be murdered, I would feel horror, anger and a sense of loss which no doubt would give rise in me to a sense of vengeance. However, our legal system has moved away from self-help and revenge. Prosecution—except in a few instances—is the responsibility of the state. That is because the collective response of the state is more likely to be dispassionate and more likely to be in the interest of us all. The supremacy of the institution is given effect, rather than individual redress.
I return to a point that has not been addressed in the debate, but which I believe to be fundamental. What right does the state have to take revenge on a citizen by taking his life?

Mr. Dicks: Every right.

Mr. Campbell: Well, that must be a question of belief.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there is no evidence that capital punishment deters. Can he explain why, prior to abolition, the average

number of murders in the United Kingdom was approximately 140 a year, and why the current average is 700?

Mr. Campbell: There has been a substantial rise in violent crime, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to relate all of that rise to capital punishment, he will find it hard to bring his evidence home conclusively.
An important consideration is the risk of mistake. The hon. Member for Ryedale developed a curious argument that if we improve our procedures, there will be less risk of miscarriages of justice and therefore we should be willing to accept capital punishment. But the hon. Gentleman forgets that genuine mistakes occur. Identification evidence is notoriously fallible, and genuine mistakes may occur as a result of that. He forgets that mistakes often occur through inefficiency, and because of inadequate forensic examination. He forgets that mistakes are sometimes made as a result of the inadequacy of defence counsel. He forgets that mistakes that occur because of a breach of the rules of evidence or because of the concealment of evidence can be extremely difficult to discover, no matter what provisions the Home Secretary may introduce.
When all that is put against the inconclusive possibility of the reintroduction of capital punishment providing deterrence, the argument falls strongly in favour of those who do not support reintroduction.

Mr. Stephen: Many hon. Members agree that capital punishment should not be restored, but is not the alternative of life imprisonment, which means on average about 12 years, a fraud on the public? Should not a person who otherwise would be executed he sent to prison for life meaning life, subject only to the Court of Appeal being able to let him out if it should transpire that he was wrongly convicted?

Mr. Campbell: If it is a fraud on the public, it is a fraud —dare I say—committed by Home Secretaries and by Secretaries of State for Scotland who make that decision, and not by the courts. The life sentence imposed by a court is for life—[Interruption.] As a matter of law, it is for life. A person is released on licence and is liable to be recalled at any time during his life because a life sentence has been imposed on him. He can be recalled for crimes which fall a long way short of further commission of the crime of murder.
Mistakes that lead to capital punishment cannot be put right. The names of Evans, Hanratty and Bentley in their own ways stand as monuments to injustice and to the inherent risk that capital punishment necessarily embraces. A posthumous pardon is no substitute for life and liberty.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we have not abolished the death penalty? We have taken it out of the courts of law. We have obliged our police officers and others, when going to arrest dangerous persons, to go armed. When they are shooting, mistakes occur and it is often not the person who has committed the murder but a perfectly innocent bystander who is killed.

Mr. Campbell: I have to challenge the proposition with which the hon. Lady opened. I understood the effect of the 1965 Act to be the abolition of capital punishment for


crimes of murder. It still exists for certain crimes within the armed setvices, but capital punishment for murder has been abolished.
I return to the point that I made earlier: it is almost 30 years since capital punishment was abolished. One must have regard to that fact as much as to any other in determining whether reintroduction is possible.
I mentioned Evans, Hanratty and Bentley. I could have mentioned more contemporary illustrations such as Preece, Meehan, the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four, some or, indeed, all of whom might well have suffered the same fate as Timothy Evans. If they had, they would simply have underlined the dangerous finality of the cruel and inhuman punishment which capital punishment represents.
We have to ask ourselves this: are we so confident of ourselves and our judicial system that we are willing to wager the life of any citizen on capital punishment? I do not have that confidence and I do not believe that the Committee should have it either.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on the way in which they spoke to the new clauses. This issue gives rise to deep-seated and passionately held convictions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for giving the Committee the opportunity to express its view.
By tradition, the role of the Home Secretary in these debates has been to offer some analysis of the background to the factors that the Committee will wish to take into account, to comment on the effect of the new clauses and to say something about his personal views. I shall attempt to follow that tradition.
The first thing to do is to set the debate in the context of history. At the beginning of the 19th century, capital punishment was available for more than 200 offences, including cutting down trees and consorting with gipsies. During the first half of that century, there was a lengthy and eventually successful campaign to reduce the scope of the death penalty, and by 1861 it was available only for murder, high treason, piracy with violence and the destruction of public arsenals and dockyards. Since then, apart from for treason, there have been no executions other than for murder. In 1908, the death penalty was abolished for children under 16. The minimum age was raised again in 1933, to 18.
The abolition debate continued during the first half of this century. In 1930, a parliamentary Select Committee recommended suspension of the death penalty for a trial period of five years, but no action was taken. In 1948, the House carried a motion to the same effect, which was heavily defeated in another place. The same fate befell a later Bill to abolish the death penalty in 1956.
In 1957, as a response to growing concern about the appropriateness of the death penalty for every murder, the Homicide Act 1957 was passed. This restricted capital punishment to the most heinous categories of murder. That categorisation failed to command confidence. In 1965, Sydney Silverman's private Member's Bill to abolish the death penalty for a trial period of five years was passed; abolition was confirmed by Parliament in 1969.
Since 1965, the House of Commons has returned to this matter on at least 13 occasions. That shows both the

strength of feelings held about capital punishment and the irreconcilable nature of the convictions held on both sides of the argument. It is now more than three years since we last debated the issue, and it is right that we should return to it now—particularly in the context of legislation to introduce a number of significant measures to combat crime.
The homicide statistics set the context for our debate and bear in particular on the question of the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent—a factor which will, no doubt, weigh heavily with right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon.
The number of offences initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales has risen steadily since the 1950s, although the rate of increase has slowed considerably in the past decade. In the decade from 1956 to 1965 the average number of homicides a year was 294; from 1966 to 1975, it was 450; from 1976 to 1985, it was 580; and from 1986 to 1992, it was 670. In 1992, the number was 687.
Those figures need some amplification. First, the figures include the offences of manslaughter and infanticide. Many homicides—well over 50 per cent. in 1992—do not result in a conviction for murder, but the number of convictions for murder has also risen steadily, averaging 187 over the 10 years ending in 1991. The recorded figures for crime in general and violent crime have risen much faster than have the number of homicides. Although the number of recorded homicides between 1966 and 1985 was 60 per cent. higher than in the preceding 20 years, the number of serious violent offences was 205 per cent. higher. The total of recorded crimes of all kinds was 220 per cent. higher. That said, I have made it clear on many occasions that I share the widespread scepticism about the value of total recorded crime figures. The level of reporting of particular offences can be influenced by many factors, including the availability of telephones and insurance, and the extent of public confidence in the ability of the police to take effective action in a particular set of circumstances.
The picture in the United States, which has much more recent experience of the death penalty, is not much clearer. In the 10 years between 1967 and 1977, when there were no executions, the homicide rate rose from 6.2 to 8.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. When executions were started again in 1977, it continued to rise, to over 10 per 100,000 in 1980. It fell back to 7.9 in 1984, but has now almost regained its peak at 9.8. In the period during which the homicide rate fell—between 1980 and 1985—there is no evidence that it fell at a greater rate in those states that had the death penalty than in those that did not.
The story is similar elsewhere. Other countries that have abolished the death penalty have, like the United Kingdom, seen lower increases in homicide than in other violent offences. In Canada, the homicide rate has fallen slowly since the abolition of capital punishment in 1976.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: Will my hon. Friend forgive me for a moment? I should like to finish this point and then I shall certainly give way to her.
I have given the figures. They are not conclusive either way. I have no doubt in my own mind that the death penalty may act as a deterrent in certain cases. That is why, until and including 1990, I voted consistently in favour of


the death penalty for the murder of police or prison officers, or for murder committed with firearms or explosives. I thought that the deterrent effect would be greatest for those categories. Indeed, there is widespread anecdotal evidence, and support among the police, for the view that criminals are today far more willing to go to the scene of crime equipped with a firearm than in decades gone by. I changed my view about bringing back the death penalty in 1991 for reasons other than the argument about deterrence. I shall explain them at the end of my speech.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point that I should like to make is in response to my right hon. and learned Friend's observation that the level of violent crime has risen faster than homicide. Does he think that much of that is attributable to the incredible improvement in medical science? Many cases which would have been murder in the old days are now saved by the skill of our surgeons.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend may well have a point which, in part, explains the difference. I doubt very much whether it accounts for the whole of that difference, but it may have had a part to play.
I shall proceed next to deal with incapacitation, which has caused great concern to many of my hon. Friends. It cannot be denied that the availability of the death penalty can ensure that convicted murderers, or particular types of murderers, do not kill again. The mandatory life sentence, of course, ensures that a rigorous assessment of risk must be made in every case before release of a murderer can be contemplated and allows, in appropriate cases, for a murderer to be detained for the rest of his life. The death penalty is, nevertheless, the one certain means of providing that assurance completely.
Again, however, the figures need careful attention. It is true— appalling true— that 76 homicides have been committed since the abolition of the death penalty by people previously convicted of homicide. But it does not necessarily follow that those further deaths would have been prevented had the death penalty still been in force. Of those 76 homicides, 51 were committed by people previously convicted of homicide other than murder; the death penalty would not have been available in those cases. Of the remaining 25 cases, seven involved homicide by murderers convicted before 1965, when the death penalty was still in force, but for whom, by definition, it was not regarded as appropriate. Of the 18 homicides committed by people convicted of murder since 1965, it appears that in 14 cases the original murder was not capital murder under the 1957 Act. So if the death penalty had not been abolished in 1965, the number of cases in which it is likely that a life would have been saved by the execution of a murderer would be, at most, four. Of course that is four deaths too many, and the argument of principle— that the death penalty would eliminate the possibility of some murderers killing again— is unanswerable. But the number of cases in which that would apply is far smaller than many suppose.
I should like now to deal with the new clauses. New clause 2, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and others of my hon. Friends, provides that the death penalty would apply to persons over the age of 18 convicted of the murder of a police officer. It is easy to understand the view that that category of murder, above all, deserves the most powerful denunciation that society can deliver. An attack on a police officer represents the most

direct attack possible on the maintenance of law and order. Whatever our views in this debate, I know that the whole Committee will want to join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale in expressing its deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the family of Sergeant Derek Robertson, the latest police officer victim of murder, and its utter abhorrence at the evil attack that resulted in his death.

Mr. Stephen: Surely the person—whoever it was—who killed Sergeant Robertson should never be released. Surely he should not be able to hope that some future Home Secretary would release him. That is what our constituents expect and deserve. People like the killer of Sergeant Robertson must be dealt with extremely severely.

Mr. Howard: When my hon. Friend raised this point at Question Time recently, I told him that I was considering it. I shall come in a moment to the particular arrangements that we currently make for those who are convicted of the murder of police officers.
We ask our police officers to confront, on our behalf, those who have no compunction about using violence to further their ends or to escape capture. Their place in the front line of the fight against crime makes them particularly vulnerable to attack, and it is right that we should employ all measures available to us to protect them while they carry out their duties on our behalf. I have paid particular attention to this matter since I became Home Secretary.
I firmly believe that there should be a strong deterrent for the murder of police officers. Those responsible serve as a minimum 20 years in prison. Many will serve much longer than that. Some will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. Even if murderers are released—they can have no expectation that they will be—they are liable to recall for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to tell the Committee whether weekend newspaper reports to the effect that Anthony Jeffs, who murdered Police Constable Peter Guthrie in 1972, has been recalled to custody are correct? If so, why has that person been recalled?

Mr. Howard: The person to whom my hon. Friend refers has indeed been recalled to custody. I should prefer not to go into the details at this stage, but I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend about the matter.
New clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend for Batley and Spen, would reintroduce the death penalty for all murderers over the age of 18. In those cases, under the new clause, death would be the mandatory penalty, but as soon as practicable following a sentence of death a special sitting of the Court of Appeal would be convened to consider whether the circumstances of the offence or the offender justified the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment.
The new clause would enact a proposal first discussed by the House of Commons in 1990. By imposing a mandatory sentence of death on all murderers, it avoids the difficulties that can arise from attempting to define degrees of murder in legislation. It then attempts to meet the concerns that led to the Homicide Act 1957 by providing for the decision to be immediately reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The idea of a procedure that avoids the difficult task of setting out in legislation the criteria for distinguishing between murders that are serious enough to


merit death and those that are not has obvious advantages to many who favour capital punishment, but it has its drawbacks.
In particular, we need to consider the responsibility that the new clause would place on the Court of Appeal. In 1990, the then Home Secretary drew to the attention of the House of Commons the views of the then Lord Chief Justice on such an arrangement. I thought it appropriate, in reconsidering the idea enshrined in the new clause, to consult the current Lord Chief Justice on the matter, and he has given me permission to make his views known in this debate. He shares the view of his predecessor that the Court of Appeal would usually be in a worse position than the trial judge to make the decision that the clause would require, not having heard the evidence or seen the defendant or the witnesses. He also believes that it would, in any case, be wholly inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to decide which death sentences should be carried out. He is strongly of the view that it must be the responsibility of Parliament—and not of the judiciary—to determine which types of murder should be met with death and which should not.
On that last point, it is surely particularly difficult to disagree with the Lord Chief Justice. I do not think that it would be right for Parliament to hand this responsibility over to others. The decision must be ours to make.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we were to get rid of the term "murder" and use, instead, the term "homicide", we should be able to classify the seriousness of conduct resulting in the death of another person? Does he agree that a person sentenced to life imprisonment—the penalty that would apply in the case of the most serious types of homicide—should remain in prison for life and not be the subject of a fictional term meaning nothing?

Mr. Howard: I have already dealt, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), with the point contained in the second part of my hon. and learned Friend's question. In response to the first part, I have to say that I do not agree that it would be sensible, in effect, to abolish murder and simply have the offence of homicide, within which there could be various characterisations. Murder is a subdivision of homicide. The deliberate taking of a life, which is what the offence of murder involves, is something which society will always want to mark as an offence of special significance, to be treated specially and separately.

Mrs. Peacock: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend. If my understanding is correct, he has said that it would not be right to ask the Court of Appeal to make such a judgment as I am proposing, as it would not have had the benefit of seeing all the evidence and hearing the witnesses. However, at present the Attorney-General can appeal against a lenient sentence and have it changed by the Court of Appeal in very similar circumstances.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to advance that argument, but the analogy that she draws is less than wholly convincing. Her new clause would give the Court of Appeal jurisdiction over not only sentence but categorisation of various types of murder. Those are

different questions from those that the Court of Appeal has to address in connection with what has become since 1988 the more conventional matter of appeals against lenient sentences, which are considered on the reference of the Attorney-General.

5 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier: To pursue the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), British judges are currently available to act, in their capacity as members of the Privy Council, as a final court of appeal for people charged with murder in a number of former colonies, including several West Indian countries. Do not the same problems arise in those cases? The judges have not seen the defendant and have not been present at the original trial, but they continue to make judgments that may lead to execution.

Mr. Howard: The judges do not make a judgment about which categories of murder merit the death penalty. They may consider appeals against conviction or, in certain circumstances, even appeals against sentence, but the new clause will give the Court of Appeal the task of deciding which categories of the offence of murder merit the death penalty. That is not something which the Privy Council has to decide at the moment. According to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice, it is not a matter on which the Court of Appeal wants to decide. If there were to be such categorisation, Parliament should accept responsibility for it and not the judges. It is not a responsibility which Parliament should seek to hand over to the judges.

Mr. Marlow: I have just read with some care the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). Where does it say anything about categorisation? If the new clause were accepted, the House would be saying to judges that the sentence for murder should be execution. The judges in the Court of Appeal would then be able to decide whether there were special circumstances whereby clemency should be exercised and an alternative sentence imposed. The new clause contains nothing about categorisation.

Mr. Howard: With respect to my hon. Friend, the new clause does not say anything about special circumstances. I do not know whether it was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen to include such provision in the new clause. She did not say anything along those lines when she introduced the new clause. It does not provide the new approach that the death penalty should, as a rule, be carried out in all cases of murder save where there are special circumstances. In its present form, the new clause would inevitably involve some degree of categorisation and I do not think that that is an appropriate responsibility for Parliament to hand over to the judges.

Mrs. Peacock: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend said, although I do not believe that that is what the new clause said. I should be more than willing, however, to accept his wording of such a clause and vote for that instead.

Mr. Howard: No, no—I was replying to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I suggested to him that the particular meaning that he was seeking to give to the new clause was not supported by the new clause as drafted. Other different


difficulties would arise if a new clause were drafted in the way suggested by him. I would explain those difficulties were they to arise from the wording of the new clause.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened with great interest to the speeches, especially that of my right hon. and learned Friend. It appears that we cannot prove that capital punishment is a deterrent against homicide, murder, manslaughter and infanticide. It must follow that life imprisonment, as it is now constituted, does not act as a deterrent, or cannot be proved to do so. What does act as a deterrent?

Mr. Howard: I said earlier that I thought that, although the statistics were not entirely conclusive, the death penalty would constitute a deterrent, but that is not the end of the matter, as I shall now explain.
In this debate, my views count only as the views of one Member of Parliament and I do not propose to expound them at length. I set out my position in an article published in March 1991, nearly three years ago, in the wake of the Birmingham Six case. Until, and including, 1990, I had voted consistently for the return of capital punishment for the murder of police or prison officers, or for murder committed with firearms or explosives. I thought that the deterrent effect would be greatest in those categories. I justified that position on the basis that a wide-ranging appeal process in capital cases would effectively eliminate the risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Such a procedure, however, was adopted in the Birmingham Six case and it failed to identify any irregularities. It failed to do the job that I thought it would do, a job which I thought was essential if capital punishment was to be restored. That led me to re-examine my position and inform my constituents about it nearly three years ago. The tragic case of Stefan Kiszko, who sadly died just before Christmas, has provided a more recent reinforcement of that view. In 1976, Mr. Kiszko was convicted of the murder of a school girl—a crime to which he had confessed. His conviction was quashed in 1992 after forensic tests proved that he could not have been the murderer. There are cases, particularly where the suspect has for whatever reason confessed, where avenues of appeal are not explored or pursued until new evidence comes to light.
Miscarriages of justice are a blot on a civilised society. For someone to spend years in prison for a crime he or she did not commit is both a terrible thing and one for which release from prison and financial recompense cannot make amends. But even that injustice cannot be compared with the icy comfort of a posthumous pardon. When we consider the plight of those who have been wrongly convicted, we cannot but be relieved that the death penalty was not available. We should not fail to consider the irreparable damage that would have been inflicted on the criminal justice system had innocent people been executed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale referred to the proposal of the Royal Commission on criminal justice that a criminal cases review authority should be established. The Government intend to set up such an organisation and I hope to consult soon on the detail of its constitution, but new machinery can never provide a complete answer. The fault lies not in the machinery but in the fallibility and frailty of human judgment.
I understand the concern felt by right hon. and hon. Members and the public about the rise in crime, and in

violent crime in particular. Since I became Home Secretary nearly nine months ago, I have made no secret of my determination to turn that concern into action. That is why the Bill is before the Committee today. That action will be taken, but, for the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that the restoration of capital punishment should be part of it. That is why I shall vote against the two new clauses in the names of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Blair: On moral, as well as on practical and utilitarian grounds, I oppose both new clauses. But whatever disagreements I have with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) about the new clause, I share his views on the three principles, on which he hoped all hon. Members would agree, involving the murder of police officers.
I understand why a majority of my constituents, and perhaps a majority of people in the country, will answer yes to the question, "Do you favour the death penalty?" They are angry and outraged at the murders and killings in our society. However, I should like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) to reflect on the fact that, in every debate on the subject that I have witnessed, the value of the debate has become obvious as it has proceeded and as we have moved from general and instantaneous reactions to the particular and the considered. Suddenly, answers that appeared obvious become more complex and conclusions that seemed certain are open to doubt. Such a large majority of Members did not vote against the restoration of the death penalty on each occasion because they were unaware of their constituents' views, but because, on reflection and after considered debate, they could not support those views.
The most powerful argument against restoration—an argument that would be enough in itself—is the risk of killing the innocent and of a miscarriage of justice. I support what the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago and will briefly return to the subject—

Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he had no doubt that most of his constituents would probably support the reintroduction of the death penalty. Is he saying that his understanding, and that of the Committee if it refuses to vote for the death penalty, is greater than that of his constituents? Is it not also possible that all such major issues are essentially simple? We make them complicated so that we do not have to face them.

Mr. Blair: With respect, we have to face them and we are doing so this afternoon. I certainly do not believe that my understanding is superior to that of my constituents, but, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen was fair enough to acknowledge when she moved her new clause, we are representatives, not delegates, and we must act according to our conscience.
The utilitarian argument against the restoration of the death penalty—the argument about miscarriages of justice —is the most powerful, but it is by no means the only practical argument against. Another argument that is sometimes forgotten is illustrated by the nature of the two new clauses under discussion.
The clause tabled by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen is general and that of the hon. Member for Ryedale is particular, in that it applies only to the murder of police officers. The choice illustrates the practical problem that faces everyone, even those who support the death penalty


in principle. How does one distinguish, on a rational rather than an arbitrary basis, those homicides that should attract the death penalty and those that should not?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To widen the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is correct, if one introduces the death penalty for shooting and killing someone, should not one also apply it for shooting at—but missing—a person? Perhaps one should receive an additional sentence for being a bad shot.

Mr. Blair: I think that I am uniquely unqualified to comment on that intervention.
Since no one suggests that all murders should result in the death penalty, there must be a basis for distinction. If statute provides that all murders should attract the death penalty, someone—the Home Secretary or the Court of Appeal—has to make the final decision and discretion becomes too wide.
However, if statute defines the categories, there is a substantial risk of arbitrary decisions of a different sort and of murders that are equally heinous attracting different penalties. That is underlined by our history and that of the United States. When I researched the subject, I found it interesting to note that decisions on the constitution made by the US Supreme Court hinged to a considerable degree on the difficulty of establishing a blanket penalty of death for murder—a penalty which would be applied by juries in different cases in different ways.
Until 1965, the debate in Britain also hinged on that subject. For four decades of royal commissions, Select Committees and debates in the House, the debate revolved around attempts to distinguish between various types of homicide. The royal commission of 1953 concluded that
the outstanding defect of the law of murder is it provides a single punishment for a crime widely varying in culpability".
It went on to discuss various murders in England and Scotland. The Homicide Act 1957 was passed in recognition of that fact, because a general penalty for murder was thought to be unacceptable.
The 1957 Act betrays its era. For example, Ruth Ellis would have hanged even after that Act because she shot her lover. If she had knifed him, she would not have hanged. I think that I am also right in saying that, under the 1957 Act, neither Myra Hindley nor the Yorkshire Ripper would have hanged.
When Parliament debated the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, no one supported the continuance of the 1957 Act because of the distinctions that it drew and the difficulty of enforcing them, yet those distinctions had been the dominant subject for debate for almost four decades preceding the 1965 Act.
The problem is that the circumstances of murders are infinitely different, but the difference between the death penalty and any other penalty—even life imprisonment —is absolute. Death is death. There is no revoking that sentence once it is carried out—no recall, no commutation and no pardon, except posthumously.
Virtually all the attempts to legislate—even those made by people who accept the principle of the death penalty—have fallen foul of that problem. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen attempts to circumvent it by providing a general application of the death penalty for murder, but

allowing the Court of Appeal to decide whether it should be carried out. Quite apart from the formidable logistical problems of reviewing all cases in which there is a conviction for murder, I agree entirely with the Home Secretary that it cannot be right to abdicate to that court the responsibility for deciding whether death is appropriate in each case. The hon. Lady cannot avoid the fact that categorisations would have to be made and that they would be made arbitrarily and would vary from court to court, from time to time, and probably from newspaper coverage to newspaper coverage.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ryedale applies the death penalty to the murder of police officers. That is a heinous crime, but so are terrorist killings—blowing people up in a pub—and the rape of young girls, followed by their brutal murder. If the death penalty were appropriate to one such crime it would be appropriate to all.
However, the Home Secretary dwelt on the most practical argument against the restoration of the death penalty towards the end of his speech. That argument concerns the risk of a miscarriage of justice if the death penalty is carried out. Although the hon. Member for Batley and Spen involves the Court of Appeal in the process to guard against the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, in virtually all the cases that we have discussed that court had considered and dismissed the appeals of those convicted and their convictions were quashed only when evidence emerged at a much later date. That fact is important. When people are asked about the death penalty they consider it in the abstract. They assume that guilt can be proved absolutely—they assume, as a given, that the person is genuinely guilty. But experience has taught us the fallibility of the process of establishing guilt. The given in the answer is, in fact, not given at all.
The House of Commons Library note has a list of some 32 separate cases where, since 1965, miscarriages of justice have been shown. Besides the well-known Guildford and Birmingham convictions, the case of Stefan Kiszko stands out, because he would unquestionably have been hanged, but he was unquestionably innocent. The power to review would not have saved him.

Mr. John Sykes: Throughout the debate I have listened to hon. Members speak about the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Seven—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six."] I beg hon. Members' pardon. Not once have I heard anyone mention the Birmingham 21, those young men and women who died. How I wish from the depths of my heart that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would speak for those who no longer have a voice. Had the death penalty been available then, that crime might not have been committed.

Mr. Blair: With respect, that is not a worthy intervention. The Opposition speak up for the victims of crime. When the hon. Member for Ryedale moved his new clause, the Home Secretary and I, and all hon. Members, commented on the appalling nature of such crimes. To convict the wrong people in the Birmingham case was not the answer to the problem. The power of review would not have saved them.
With hindsight, we may be able to see the flaws in that case, but I ask the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) to think back and remember the time when those cases were in the news. At that time, people seemed certain


about those charged. At that time, the newspaper coverage of those trials was clear. Had the new clauses been in operation then, would the clamour have been one of doubt or of mercy? Would the newspapers have carried editorials pleading for clemency? The noise would have been one way, motivated by an entirely righteous detestation of those crimes. The death penalty would have been demanded and it would have been given. If any court had stood in the way of that, it would have been pilloried. If any Home Secretary had reprieved those people, he would have been pilloried. That is the truth. We cannot ignore that when we consider those cases.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one other offshoot of the faulty decision at the Birmingham trial was that those who carried out the murder of those 21 people have never been detected or convicted and never will be because of the delay?

Mr. Blair: That is true.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Stefan Kiszko would have been hanged if the new clauses had been in operation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that that would not have happened if the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr.Greenway) had been in operation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps, had the death penalty been an option, the Birmingham trial would have taken more careful account of the details and studied the evidence in more detail?

Mr. Blair: With respect, that is a classic judgment of hindsight. The feature that runs through all those cases is that, at the time, they were not open to doubt. In the Kiszko case, he confessed. The doubt that arose came to light long after the trial.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) did not mean it, but the implication behind his question is that somehow judges or juries are somewhat casual because the death penalty does not exist. He is wrong. They study cases with the greatest of scrutiny. What stands out so powerfully about the cases that I have cited is that people were certain and that "beyond reasonable doubt" meant just that. Doubts, of course, arose later.

Mr. Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed that many of those who are strongest in their demands for the death penalty are least concerned about the possibility of mistakes? Judging from the muttering from the Conservative Benches, it is clear that, even in this debate, some Conservative Members have not yet faced up to the fact that the wrong people were convicted in the Birmingham and Guildford cases, as well as in others.

Mr. Blair: I very much hope that all Conservative Members share the abhorrence felt by everyone who believes in justice at the possibility of wrongful conviction and miscarriages of justice.
The proponents of the death penalty can rightly point to the innocent victims who were killed by those who might have been hanged for one murder, but who, after imprisonment, committed further murders. I do not intend to add to what the Home Secretary said about that, but he provided a pretty telling dissection of the notion that many murders fit into that category. What at first blush appeared to be 76 cases was then whittled down to four. I do not

discount that number and I accept that four is too many, but they must weigh in the balance. The case that was put is not as clear as it was.
The ultimate argument in favour of the death penalty —it is important that those of us who are opposed to the death penalty should deal with it—is that it may deter some from killing where, otherwise, they might have killed. I should like to put it in a slightly different way from that put by Conservative Members. It could be argued that the death penalty is not about taking life but trying to save it from those who might otherwise have murdered.
The most that can be said when examining the evidence is that it is uncertain. It is true that, since 1965, the number of homicides has risen, but the level of crime and violent crime has also risen dramatically. There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, that that rise has been attributable to the abolition of the death penalty.
The experience in the United States points in different directions, from different states. The death penalty is regularly used in certain states, yet the murder rate is still very high. The international comparisons yield little. Conservative Members who favour the death penalty should consider the evidence that, in the end, one has to weigh in the scales. There may be certain instances—we do not know and we cannot quantify them—in which people are deterred. I do not exclude that possibility, but we must weigh that against the fact that evidence of deterrence is uncertain, whereas evidence of miscarriages is certain and they have happened, beyond any doubt. When we place against the irrefutable evidence of the potential for miscarriages of justice those other matters, the argument is one way.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Mr. Blair: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once and that is enough. I must get on.

Mr. Lord: On that specific point.

Mr. Blair: Because of my natural generosity, I will give way.

Mr. Lord: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Nothing could prove more conclusively to the Committee and to anyone who happens to watching or listening the saying
lies, damned lies and statistics.
Everyone has his own statistics to prove what he wants to prove. In all sincerity, however, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is pure common sense that criminals going out to rob or to do mischief may think twice before taking a gun or a knife with them if they know that the sentence of capital punishment is available to the courts?

Mr. Blair: No, for the very reasons given by the royal commission more than 40 years ago, when it first considered the matter. It is not that statistics can tell all sorts of different stories; the most powerful feature about the statistics gathered here, in the United States and virtually everywhere is that they tell no story. I do not ignore what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it must be weighed in the scales of what we know has happened for a certainty in our country. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that, according to his proposals, those miscarriages would have meant that innocent people would


have been killed in circumstances where that should not have happened. In that case, even the utilitarian case for the death penalty is not made out.
The death penalty cannot be justified, even on the grounds claimed by some hon. Members. But it is also wrong in principle. It is a response to evil that is evil itself. It is to act, as a society, not in justice but in anger; not in reason but for revenge. No matter how clothed it is in the legal process and however much it is attended by all the trappings of the law, it cannot disguise its real nature, which is cruel and barbaric. We do not uphold the sanctity of human life by taking it, or underline its precious nature by snuffing it out.
The death penalty does not elevate, inspire or help us attain a better society. We were right to get rid of it almost 30 years ago and we should not, now of all times and after all that has happened within our judicial system, restore it. Let it lie in history where it belongs.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about whether it is right for society to have a death penalty? Since Roman times, and even before, the issue of the death penalty has been debated time and again. Nobody can say that the Roman or Greek societies were uncivilised. Indeed, nor were the school men of medieval times. They all reached the conclusion that people have the right—the state consists of people—to take the lives of those who have taken the lives of others.
The matter can be studied in the Mosaic code, from which one of the greatest civilisations grew. It is to be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, and I remind hon. Members who are members of the Church of England of the content of the 39 articles. The 37th article gives the state the right to take the life of an individual with the agreement of the people within that state.
Human nature has not so improved in the past 150 years that we can say that we are now so civilised that we have passed that stage. Whether one is a creationist or a fundamentalist, one cannot say that human nature has changed since God breathed on man in the garden of Eden. Human nature remains static.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. Once I have talked my full argument through, it may help him. We both have hair on our faces, so we obviously agree on major issues. I may lead him to the truth bit by bit.
It is arrogant of us to believe that we are now so civilised that we can turn our backs on all the wisdom of the past. I support capital punishment being available because human nature has remained static. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman who looks like me, but at the beginning of civilisation.

Mr. Enright: I must look in the mirror as I go out.
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to reflect on a quotation from Christ:
It was said to you of old, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, love one another"?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have already shown my friendship with the hon. Gentleman and thus illustrated "love one another". But it also means that the whole of humankind should love one another. It does not mean that we should lay down and let people do what they want or threaten others. There is no loving in that. If bringing back capital punishment would result in greater safety for people in society, we have a right to bring it back. Throughout the ages, religious leaders of all types have ultimately come down on the side of capital punishment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman also meditate on what Apostle Paul said:
If I have committed a crime worthy of death, I refuse not to die"?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is a marvellous double negative. I bow to the hon. Gentleman on that. Before we have quotations going backwards and forwards across the Chamber like the Book of Proverbs, let me say that we can all dig up instances but must make our judgment on the general. Throughout history civilised societies, whether or not they have liked the death penalty, have kept it because they considered it a necessity. I follow them because I believe that it is a necessity.
May I deal with the narrow issue of the police? Unless we bring back capital punishment for anyone who kills a policeman, we risk having more arms on the streets. The police will demand more arms and, by the time we have finished, our society will be like an old Yankee film, with small guns and machine guns on the streets. Policemen's wives will ensure that their husbands demand arms because they will want them to come home for their sake and that of their children, and society will grant that. There will be an escalation of weapons in our society because criminals can always get them. I have always said that the only people who cannot obtain weapons are law-abiding citizens.
If hon. Members do not want to vote for capital punishment, they should vote for life imprisonment that does not come to an end after a time but means imprisonment for life. I do not agree with those who oppose capital punishment, but, logically, they must support life imprisonment for anyone who kills a policeman.
We have heard arguments about whether we should bow down to the views of the people. One hon. Member quoted Burke, who said that he was a representative and not a delegate. I remind hon. Members that he then lost the following election. People should not read just the first chapter of a book. Members of Parliament risk distancing themselves from the views of people outside. We are becoming less representative on this matter. If tonight we turn down the option for capital punishment and reduce the age of consent for homosexuality, tomorrow the gap between hon. Members and people in the country will be even greater. I do not say that we should do everything that they want, but we should listen to them.
May I end where I began? Given that every civilised society in history has reached the conclusion that capital punishment is necessary for the preservation of life, who are we, given the present crime rates and the state of the world, to say that we are better than our ancestors? Tonight, I shall vote for the return of capital punishment with a clear conscience, on religious and civil grounds.

Mr. Mallon: I remind hon. Members that we have a free vote on this matter. The reason for the tradition of a free vote on it is that it involves not just legal, political or practical issues, but, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, an element of morality. In the few minutes available to me, I shall approach the matter on that basis.
I do so not least because of the legal arguments that were eloquently made by previous speakers, which it would be pointless to repeat.
I have a special interest in this issue and have spoken in debates dealing with it since I first became a Member. My interest stems largely from the fact that I live in an area in which capital punishment is exercised almost every day of the week. In the society in which I live, more than 3,000 people have been killed by those who have abrogated to themselves the right to do that which some hon. Members believe the state should do to others. I find that repulsive. If one takes the number of people who have died in Northern Ireland, on a pro rata basis 18,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales would have been killed over the past few years.
I know the effect that that form of capital punishment has on the families of victims—not least, the family of the young policeman who was killed last weekend—and of those who carry out such acts. I know the effect that it has on that part of the community from which the person who pulled the trigger and his victim came. I know the effect on those charged with enforcing the law and with implementing the legal and judicial system. The effect can never be quantified. There are no statistics, but that effect has eaten into the heart and soul of the community in which I live—and it stems from the abrogation of the right to take the life of another human being.
I know also what it is like to be under sentence of death. Every hon. Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency has been and is under sentence of death from one terrorist group or another in the north of Ireland. The chilling words of interviews given by loyalist prisoners at the weekend explain why this subject is close to the lives of my hon. Friends and those whom we represent.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House in 1975, when it debated a motion calling for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist offences causing death. I clearly remember the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) saying that if the state did not restore capital punishment so that some deterrence existed for those in the south who were murdering in the north, it would not be long before the loyalists of the north would use terrorism to wreak their revenge on people in the south. Is that not precisely what has happened because we did not restore capital punishment for such offences?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right: I was not present in the House in 1975, for the good reason that I had not been elected. I was present for a subsequent debate on the same issue, when the question was raised of the enormity of having the death penalty in a society in which there is no jury but only one person—the judge—hearing the case. Even someone committed to restoring the death penalty would have second thoughts about that. As a lawyer, the hon. and learned Gentleman should ponder deeply on that. In making his point, I am sure that he would

not offer, as others do, an implied, spurious justification for the actions of loyalist terrorist groupings in the north of Ireland.
We are charged to produce legislation that protects the sanctity of human life and the lives of those charged with enforcing the law; all members of society, whoever they may be; and those who removed the sanctity of life from others.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: Not now.
Once we draw a distinction—and this distinction is implied—and say that one person's life has more sanctity than another's, we shall be in a quagmire.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

Mr. Mallon: I will not.
If we incorporate the taking of life and the killing of people—because that is what capital punishment means —in our legislation, we shall be adopting the values and methods of the terrorist, gangster and gunman and make them the standard by which we live. That would devalue and diminish our system of justice and make the taking of human life part of our judicial system, which would devalue rather than enhance it. It would also devalue and diminish the society that adopts that standard.
5.45 pm
In the United States Supreme Court, Justice Shurgood Marshall said:
Death is irrevocable. Life imprisonment is not. Death makes rehabilitation impossible. Life imprisonment does not. In recognising the humanity of our fellow human beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute.
He was surely talking about more than just the legislation that determines how criminals are treated. When he spoke of paying ourselves the highest tribute, he was referring also to the effect of capital punishment on society. If we diminish one element of society, we diminish it all. Justice Marshall was eloquently defending the integrity of the legal system, the value of human life, and the highest standards of society—which must derive from both.
I believe that Winston Churchill was drawing the same conclusion when he said many years ago that
the grass grows green again on the battlefield, but never on the scaffold.
He was referring to the corrosive effect of the taking of life being part of our legal system, seeping into every part of society and having a stultifying and negative effect. It is not just a legal or political issue; it goes deeper. It concerns the sort of society that we want to sustain ourselves.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: No, because I am short of time.
It is argued that the death penalty is a deterrent. We know the figures for the north of Ireland, and the Home Secretary referred to the figures for the United States. We should also examine carefully the figures for Japan.
One salutary lesson to be learnt from my own country was best put into words by the poet William Butler Yeats:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
He wrote that after the 1916 occupation of Dublin's general post office by a small number of men. That did not


change all; but the subsequent execution of those men led to the start of the Irish war of independence, and republican violence continues to this very day.
The whole genesis of violent republicanism, of the IRA, of the violence that we have seen through every decade, has stemmed not from the action of the people who took took over the GPO in 1916 but from their execution. From their execution came the motivation of martyrdom, and it created such an element in our lives. We are still paying for it to this very day. Rather than being a deterrent, those executions were the springboard and motivation for a system of violence that has continued to this very day. We have seen it as recently as last weekend. I make that point in global terms, in Irish terms, because it is worth making. Nowhere can I find any other example that best encapsulates the fact that the theory of deterrence simply does not stand up.
I shall finish with a point that was made by the former Member for Castle Point, Sir Bernard Braine, who was then Father of the House and is now in another place. It struck me deeply because of his sincerity. I had listened to him a number of times on this issue. On 24 October 1989, in The Guardian, he said:
My immediate reaction to Guildford"—
the Guildford Four—
was that this puts the kibosh on capital punishment … I was in favour of its retention. It took this case to tell me, 'Look. Pause. Reflect. What if they hanged innocent people?'
Is not that exactly what the Secretary of State was saying in his speech today? I hold that same view. I hold it on the basis from which I started, from a moral point of view, because I believe that a judicially sanctioned execution is an inherently immoral action. It is a barbaric, brutalising and degrading form of punishment which is contrary to the respect and value for human life and for the law.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Not having been in the House during the 1987–92 Parliament, I last had the opportunity to express my views on capital punishment as the Member for Nottingham, North in the early 1980s. Nottingham always took a robust attitude to capital punishment. The side outside the old Shire hall, where, until the mid 19th century, public hangings used to take place, is still marked today.
I was quite clear in my mind why I believed in capital punishment and why I voted for it on that occasion. My preference was for a return to the Homicide Act 1957, which created two categories of capital and non-capital murder. They distinguished between domestic or spontaneous murder and the cold, calculating acts of violence; of murder in the furtherance of theft; murder by shooting or explosion—although I recognise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in the Ruth Ellis case; murder to prevent arrest; murder of a policeman; and the murder of a prison officer. I believe that if capital punishment were available in those circumstances, there is a possibility that such a crime may be deterred. Before setting out on a burglary or robbery, a villain might think twice before picking up a weapon if he knew that its use could invoke the death sentence.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I will not give way, because of time.
It is impossible to prove, but my judgment in 1983 was that that was the case, and it still is. Capital punishment is an instant and awesome end, and any man sentenced to it would willingly commute it to a lesser sentence. For violent, premeditated murder, however, it is surely a just and proper punishment.
After the murder of Sergeant Robertson in Croydon last week, my instincts remain the same. He was a police officer in the performance of his duty going to protect the citizens of Croydon at the New Addington sub post office. He represented the thin blue line between anarchy and a civilised society. He paid the ultimate price for our civilised society. His murderers committed a crime so sudden and abominable that they should suffer a capital penalty. It is in my mind, and the minds of many, a justified sentence.
Yet, with all these instincts urging me on, I much regret that I cannot support the new clause today. Colleagues might ask me why, when I have done so before: what has changed? The answer is quite simply that my confidence in the criminal justice system is shaken. There have been isolated cases in which convictions for murder have been overturned or found unsafe. But in the late 1980s, the trickle turned to a flood: the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Tottenham Three, Stefan Kiszko, Jacqueline Fletcher, Judith Ward, the Darvells, the UDR Four, the Cardiff Three, the Taylor sisters, and the pardon limited to sentence of Derek Bentley from Croydon—an area which seems to attract controversy.
That is not a random list. It is an avalanche of doubt. Sitting on the top of the Old Bailey are the scales of justice, which generations have grown up to trust. The scales are tarnished. Stories of discredited witnesses, tampered evidence and incompetent experts have shaken the criminal justice system to its very roots. In the light of that, I could not send a convicted man to his death until the uncertainty is removed.
There are some out there who will say, "Yes, but we know that they did it." That is not good enough. Whatever the crime, whatever the nature of suspicion, British justice requires that those accused are found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Where doubt exists, it is right to free those whose convictions were unsafe.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No.
It is now incumbent on the Government to ensure that every step is taken to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system to the point that, in future, I may be able to be free to exercise my judgment without questioning the system itself.
Finally, we hear all too often of those who have been convicted of murder, serve a life sentence, are released after 12 years or so and commit murder again. That must never be allowed to happen. Although you, Mr. Lofthouse, have not thought it appropriate to select the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), myself and others, I believe that life should mean life. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to review that policy.

Mr. Mullin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), because I accept that it requires some courage in the Conservative party to announce one's conversion on such an issue. The hon. Gentleman is one of a number of Conservative Members


who have changed their views. Some of them have expressed to me privately the view that since the big miscarriages of justice of the mid-1970s, they could not in all conscience continue to vote for the death penalty. The Home Secretary has said tonight that that is his position. I should like to think that that would influence some of his colleagues.
I do not mean to trivialise the debate in any way, but in a sense this subject has now become an internal dispute in the Conservative party. Outside the Conservative party, with the possible exception of one Scottish nationalist, no one else is willing any longer to vote for the death penalty.

Mrs. Peacock: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that many of the hundreds of letters that I have received have not come from Conservative party supporters.

Mr. Mullin: I readily acknowledge that and will address that point—indeed, I did during my intervention in the hon. Lady's speech.
The death penalty, and hanging people in particular, is a peculiarly British obsession. It is about time that we rid ourselves of it. It is not shared by other European countries. In my view, it is a sickness. We have debated the subject endlessly. Even in the few years that I have been a Member of Parliament, it has come up on four or five occasions. I think that the Home Secretary said that it has come up on 13 occasions since the death penalty was abolished. I hope that this will be the last time.
Some Conservative Members are persuaded of the logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Croydon, South and the Home Secretary, but lack the courage to stand up to their own party on the issue. I hope that they will have the courage to come out. [Interruption.] I know it to be the case because I have had it explained to me by Conservative Members, one of whom much resented the fact that some of his hon. Friends had been content to vote for the death penalty in the knowledge that it would never get through the House, relying on Conservative Members who, like him, had had the courage to stand up against their party and speak out against the death penalty.

6 pm

Mr. Hawkins: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the members of his own party who would love to vote in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment but would suffer a witch hunt from other members of the Labour party if they did so?

Mr. Mullin: I have been in the House for nearly seven years and I honestly do not know one Labour Member who falls into that category. If the hon. Gentleman does, perhaps he will take the matter up with the individual concerned.
The bottom line, already referred to in many speeches, is mistakes. We made mistakes when we executed people: Evans, Hanratty and Bentley have been mentioned,and it is now acknowledged that we made a large number of serious mistakes more recently. People profess to care for the reputation of the British legal system. If the British legal system has had a rough time in the past two years, imagine what the effect would have been worldwide if, in the Birmingham Six case, we had taken delivery of six coffins instead of six people who were able to resume what remained of their lives.
There is no doubt that three of the four people involved in the Guildford case would have hanged. There is no doubt that Judith Ward would have hanged; no doubt, too, that most of those concerned with her conviction—and I believe that this was also true in the Guildford case—knew from the outset that she was innocent; and that many others realised shortly afterwards. The Stefan Kiszko case has been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Croydon, South mentioned the Broadwater Farm case—a tragic case involving the death of a police officer to which the new clause would certainly have applied. I predict that the next people to come out of the front door of the Old Bailey will be the three survivors of the four convicted of murdering the newspaper boy, Carl Bridgewater, in 1977. They are certainly innocent and I am confident that, in due course, that case will collapse.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) will forgive me, but he has not been attending to debate. I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who has.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As probably the only Member of the House who has obtained two royal pardons for wrong convictions of murder, I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is correct. It is suggested that the death penalty is a deterrent. Seventy people a year are convicted of murder in England while 7,000 die on the roads. Does that fact deter people from driving?

Mr. Mullin: That is an interesting point, which I intend to address later. Having looked a large number of people in the eye during their final moment, Pierrepoint, the last hangman, concluded in his memoirs that the death penalty did not consitute a deterrent. Those who think that it is a deterrent ought to read his book.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: Forgive me, but I will not.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to give way to him.
It is sometimes argued that the more heinous the crime, the more we need the death penalty to deal with it. The trouble is that the more heinous the crime—as with the various IRA atrocities in the mid-1970s—the greater the hysteria that accompanies it. And the greater the hysteria, the more likely it is that we will make mistakes.
I noted the Home Secretary's remarks with particular interest. He is not a man who is soft on the law and order issue. But he is the man whose signature would have to appear on the death warrant in the event of our reintroducing capital punishment. Chuter Ede, the Labour Home Secretary whose signature appeared on the death warrant of Timothy Evans, had to live the rest of his life with the knowledge that he had sent an innocent man to the gallows. I might add that, when it became clear that that was what had happened, he turned into an abolitionist overnight. It is very easy to talk in general terms and to bay


for blood, but when it comes to particular cases and particular individuals with particular responsibilities, it is altogether different.
I note with interest that today's newspapers quote a number of prison governors as saying that they would resign if called upon to supervise the reintroduction of the death penalty. Moreover, a number of chief constables—one of them the chief constable of the West Midlands police—have said that it is inevitable that innocent people would be hanged. No one knows that better than the West Midlands police.
It is easy to say that one is against the death penalty because mistakes are made. I want to make it clear that I am against it under all circumstances. Above all, I am against it because of the hideous barbarity involved. When one sentences someone to death judicially, one sets a clock ticking. One announces that, at eight o'clock in the morning on such and such a day, one or two months' hence —and sometimes the clock is turned back to nought and started again—one will send that person to his death. That person, all his relatives and friends and everyone associated with him have to live in the knowledge that that clock is ticking, day after day, week after week, month after month.

Mr. Nigel Evans: What about the victims?

Mr. Mullin: I shall deal with that point, too.
The American system has been mentioned. In America, those sentenced to death have to live an average of 10 to 15 years in those circumstances while the legal system plays with their lives. They have death camps in Florida and Texas containing hundreds of people who wait up to 15 years. A man in California was brought into the gas chamber and out again three times during the last hour of his life. As Amnesty International remarked at the time, that was torture to the Nth degree. The death penalty has not made the blindest bit of difference in the United States. The murder rate continues to increase and guns and drugs ' are involved. Killing people is not the answer; one must address the causes—the guns and drugs.
The fundamental reason for opposing the death penalty under all circumstances is the hideous barbarity associated with it. A media circus inevitably develops. It developed in the 1950s and early 1960s—I remember it well—and it would be worse today. Media interest affects the relatives of the person concerned and of the victims. I do not want to see that day return—and I know that prison governors, judges and many senior policemen whom I know share my view.
Public opinion is often mentioned, as though we are all in this for votes—as though what we are about is ensuring that we get a few cheap votes.

Mrs. Peacock: No.

Mr. Mullin: I accept that that is not the hon. Lady's position. Public opinion is notoriously volatile. Everything depends on when a poll is taken. If it is taken the day after a particularly heinous murder, it will produce an answer saying that most people are in favour of the death penalty; if it is taken the day after the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four have been released, it will produce the opposite result.
An hon. Member asked, "What about the victims?" Among the hundreds of letters that I have received was a moving letter from a man whose daughter had been murdered—I wish that I had it with me so that I could read it to the Committee—and who gave the reasons why he would not support the death penalty despite the tragedy that he had suffered.
I note with satisfaction that the death penalty is attracting support from a diminishing number of Conservative Members. It will get a diminished number of votes tonight, and I hope that we shall lay it to rest once and for all.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since the previous debate, 1,412 people have been murdered in England and Wales. Do we care? Does it matter if the murders go on? Ought we to be doing something more about it? For two and a half hours, we have moralised, we have agonised, we have quoted and we have given all sorts of reasons why it is dangerous, difficult and harsh to make the kind of judgment that is necessary before anybody is hanged. However, 1,412 people have died. The question must be this: are we deterring enough people from murder with the penalty of life imprisonment that we currently impose or is there something more that we ought to be doing to try to save innocent lives?
I have heard all the experience put forward by my hon. and learned Friends. I have been at the Bar for 32 years. In the early days of my practice, we still had capital punishment and I was agonised by the question whether it deterred anybody. I used to ask all the heavy villains: "Did it deter you? Did it stop you taking guns and weapons when you burgled anyone's house?" The heavy villains used to tell me that it did and that they were deterred.
When I moved the motion for the restoration of capital punishment in the House in December 1975, the leader of the IRA threatened that if we passed it he would take the life of three British soldiers for every member of the IRA who was hanged. Did he do that because capital punishment was not a deterrent? He did that because he knew perfectly well that if the House agreed to the restoration of capital punishment, it would deter IRA members. [Interruption.]
During all the years that I have been in the House, the view of the great public, the people whom we represent, has never changed. It has always been that the restoration of capital punishment would save the lives of innocent people. When we debate the subject, we receive more and more letters and we get more and more support from our constituents who ask us for goodness' sake to bring back capital punishment. They say that too many people are dying because too many killers are not deterred. Are they all wrong? I hear all the views of the experts, but who are the better experts on the motivation of ordinary people than the people whom we represent? They have as much right to give their opinions about what ordinary people would be deterred from. If the deterrence of a sentence does not work, if the threat of the consequences does not work, why on earth are we punishing people for any criminal offence at all? Common sense indicates that if one raises the penalty to death, some people—not everyone, but a few people—will hesitate and decide not to kill. And the person they will hesitate about and decide not to kill is an innocent person who will live.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend has made many interventions. Perhaps I may be allowed a moment to make my comments.
I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to say that only four of the 76 prisoners released from prison since the abolition of capital punishment have killed again and yet would have been hanged. I doubt it. There is something wrong with the analysis of the figures. I do not suppose for a moment that it was only four. Even if the number of those convicted again for murder and murder only was 16, it shows that capital punishment would have saved that number of innocent lives.
The issue for us tonight is deterrence. We may all feel horrified at the idea of capital punishment, but we must not be so fearful if it is going to save lives. That is the test. People say that there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. I have said that, to me, it was sufficient evidence that heavy villians were deterred, that the terrorist leaders were deterred and that ordinary people would feel deterred. We have heard some nonsense spoken about the figures in the United States. Research conducted in Chicago university, at Yale university and at Harvard university has shown that the restoration of capital punishment has deterred. In Texas, in Florida, in Louisiana and in Georgia there has been a resultant fall in the murder rate. Since the Supreme Court in the United States said that it was perfectly proper for states to provide for capital punishment, some 23 states that have reactivated it have seen a decline in the murder rate while only 10 of those states that have reinstituted capital punishment have not seen a decline. At a rate of two to one, that seems to be strong statistical evidence of the trend that capital punishment deters some people.
6.15 pm
But the whole point about all the statistics is that they do not address the one issue that matters. The statistics will show whether there has been a decline in the murder rate or not, but they will not show the number of people who had a gun in their hand or were about to take a gun in their hand and decided not to because they would have suffered the penalty of death if they had killed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not able to give way because there are too many hon. Members who want to speak and I do not want to stop them.
In Japan, in the United States and in other civilised countries throughout the world, people have accepted that capital punishment is a deterrent. In 50 countries, there has even been an extension of capital punishment beyond the bounds of murder because the people in those countries believe that it has a deterrent effect.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: There is no doubt that life imprisonment, which we have been imposing as a substitute, has not worked. In the five years up to the abolition of capital punishment, there were 209 murders a year. There have been 670 a year since abolition—twice as many. I also take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, but for the brilliance of the medical profession, there would have been many more murders.
In 1972, 2,000 crimes were committed with guns and weapons. Today, 13,500 such crimes are committed—a sixfold increase because there is no deterrent of capital punishment to frighten people away from using guns when they go out. In 24 years before 1965, 14 police officers were killed. In the past 30 years, 54 police officers have been killed—a fourfold increase. If nothing else is clear, it is clear that life imprisonment does not deter.
One problem is that we agonise, we care, we hate the idea of signing any document that signs away a person's life. Nevertheless, if it means that we are able to save lives—

Mr. Alex Carlile: What about miscarriages of justice?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am coming to that. If it means that we shall save innocent lives, all that agonising must cease because our duty is to save lives.
Most of the debate has concerned the miscarriages of justice. Some cases were no doubt miscarriages of justice, some only may have been, and yet those convicted have been released. However, a number of things have happened since most of those miscarriages of justice took place. No police officer can falsify a confession any longer because interviews are tape recorded. [Interruption.] The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives the judge power to say that he is not satisfied with the way in which the evidence has been adduced and that he will not admit it. Judges now have to break down for the juries the various parts of a piece of evidence that they have heard which throws any doubt at all on an identification. We may now use DNA, which identifies whether somebody is or is not the person who wore the cap—the murderer. As a result of ESDA—the electro-static document analysis procedure —one can discover whether police officers may have falsified a confession, which was the basic reason why so many of those cases resulted in miscarriages of justice and acquittals.
Those very substantial changes make it much less likely than ever before that a jury will convict of murder if it has the slightest doubt. If there were a death penalty, plenty of juries that now convict of murder would not convict of murder if there were an element of doubt. With relation to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six or any other number of people and miscarriages of justice, I must make the rather obvious point that if we had had capital punishment perhaps there would have been no bombings in Guildford or Birmingham or some of the other terrible offences that have been committed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has tabled a proposal which bears close analysis. The proposal was not introduced in 1990, for I remember mentioning it in 1975. It should not be beyond the wit of man to have a tribunal which, after sentence of death has been passed, looks at all the circumstances of the offender and of the offence, including evidence that would not have been admissible in a court of law, to see whether there is any reason why the man or woman should not die. The question must be whether there is any reasonable reason why a person should not die.
Let us consider what such a tribunal would have discovered. Such a tribunal would have heard that Timothy Evans had the mental age of a 12-year-old child and that person would not have been hanged. Such a tribunal— [Interruption.] It is because Opposition Members do not


listen when people explain things on this side of the argument that, year after year, they accept the old rubbish and innocent people continue to be killed as a result.
Hanratty could have run the defence of diminished responsibility. Of course, he could not have run both that and an alibi at the trial. However, a tribunal could have decided that he should not be hanged because, if he had run the defence of diminished responsibility, it would have succeeded. We could examine the list of miscarriages of justice and discover that no one for whom anything could have been said, even a reasonably short time after the trial, would have been hanged. The people who would hang would be those for whom nothing could be said in their favour. Those people are the undoubted and vilest of killers. It would be a deterrent, even though, as a result of the tribunal, some would not die, because people would not know in advance whether things would be said that would save their lives.
The House must think again. We shall go on thinking, year after year, because that is what the people outside who sent us to this place expect of us. They know that so long as the killing and murdering continue and precious little attempt is made to introduce a deterrent sentence, society is indeed sick. We must return to a situation in which society once again has respect for the rule of law. It had more respect for the rule of law when there was a perimeter beyond which people could not go because they knew that if they took someone's life, they would die.
I thank my colleagues who have tabled the new clauses. They will have my support because, for all our tears, at the end of the day I believe that capital punishment would save innocent lives.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is always good to follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He was certainly on good form today. But if he is arguing that all the technological developments to which he referred could guarantee no miscarriages of justice, his argument is at best untenable and at worst ridiculous.
The suggestion that there would have been no Birmingham or Guildford pub bombings and no terrorism if the death penalty had been in existence is a defiance of history and a defiance of the situation in many countries where there is both terrorism and a death penalty. The hon. and learned Gentleman set out so many so-called safeguards and exceptions that we would end up without the deterrence which he suggested is required. For that reason, I entirely disagree with his argument.
I must declare an interest as I am an adviser to the Police Federation. The Police Federation would endorse the view of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but I do not. I speak on behalf of my constituents. It is my experience that, while the majority of police officers no doubt support the Police Federation's view, many take an alternative view. In many ways, the views of police officers reflect the differences of opinion on the issue among the general population.
As we have seen with the Home Secretary today, many people have in recent years taken a different view of the death penalty—and quite rightly so. People are beginning to understand that the person who may end up as the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice might be their son, daughter, husband, wife or relative. That innocent

person might be hanged. That is why today a right-wing Conservative Home Secretary will join Opposition Members and many Conservative Members in saying that the risk of a mistake in respect of the death penalty is too great. The risk of a miscarriage of justice is too great.

Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way as I am under a strict injunction from Mr. Morris to be brief.
Let me remind the Committee of those people who would be dead if the death penalty had not been abolished. Let us think about the number of people who would otherwise be dead. Those people include Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerry Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, Billy Power, John Walker, Engin Raghip, Mark Braithwaite, Jacqueline Fletcher, Judith Ward, Paul Darvell, Wayne Darvell, Neil Latimer, Noel Bell, Winston Allen, James Hegan, Stephen Miller, Tony Paris, Yusef Abdullahi, Michelle and Lisa Taylor, Kiranjit Aluwhalia and, of course, Stefan Kiszko, who unfortunately died, but who at least had some time before his death during which he was able to enjoy the freedom that he should have had throughout his life.
Many people are worried about convictions achieved on the basis of admissions and false scientific evidence. We cannot accept a position where we must apologise to a corpse or to the family of a person who has been unjustly hanged. That is not an acceptable way to proceed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I have already said that I will not give way.
Anyone who favours hanging must be prepared to see innocent people hanged. We cannot guarantee that our system is satisfactorily safe. The idea that there could be extra safeguards, either by way of a special tribunal or the Court of Appeal, is not acceptable.
Besides reducing the idea of deterrence by creating many exceptions, there would not be a proper safeguard. In respect of many cases, the Court of Appeal had heard those cases and rejected the appeals. It took 16 years to discover that Stefan Kiszko had not committed the murder for which he was convicted. Surely we are not proposing that we should wait 16 years to allow scientific evidence to present itself to ascertain innocence. That is not acceptable.
Conservative Members who favour capital punishment despite the risks of miscarriage of justice do so on the basis of a deterrent factor which outweighs the risks of a miscarriage of justice. I have had experience of representing people who have been accused of murder. I doubt whether there is deterrence in hanging. Even if there is, such miscarriages of justice that we have seen considerably outweigh the deterrence of hanging.
The vast majority of murder cases are domestic murders or murders that were committed in the heat of passion. In those circumstances, the rational thought that would go into an analysis of hanging would not deter crime. In a sense, the life sentence for murder is a deterrent. We know that murders have not increased at the rate at which other offences have increased. The argument that life imprisonment is not a deterrent is not acceptable or tenable; otherwise, when we abolished hanging, murder would have increased disproportionately to other crime. It has not. It has increased at a slower rate than that of other


crime. On that basis, hanging was not the unique deterrent that others have suggested. Therefore, one has to fall back on the idea that the risk of a miscarriage of justice is much too great and that it far outweighs the deterrent argument, which itself is very questionable.
6.30 pm
Let no one suggest that Opposition Members who oppose hanging are less concerned about, the murder of police officers. The senior officer who was the wife of the officer who was murdered some years ago and whose killer returned to custody last week is based in my constituency, and she is obviously concerned, as I am, about the outcome of the case. I am also very concerned about, and send my condolences to, the family of Sergeant Derek Robertson.
The murder of an individual is always appalling, but the killing of a police officer is an assault on the state and on a person who puts his life on the line for the community. That should merit a greater punishment—a longer prison sentence—but not a distinct type of punishment—not a death penalty—to separate it from all others. Surely the killing of one police officer does not merit a different punishment from that for the killing of 21 people in the Birmingham pub bombings. That is not a legitimate or tenable distinction. Unless we have a way of distinguishing cases that would result in the death penalty and killings which would not, we cannot allow the death penalty to be resuscitated. Will some people be found more guilty beyond reasonable doubt than others? Again, that is not acceptable. We cannot argue that if Bentley should be hanged the terrorists who blew up the Birmingham pub should not.
Is not it ironic that legislation that came about following a royal commission that was set up in the wake of a series of mistakes in our criminal justice system should be used to attempt to restore a death penalty which would simply compound the very mistakes, the very miscarriages of justice and the very undermining of our criminal justice system that that royal commission made recommendations to stop?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You heard the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Bren) say that Mr. Anthony Paris would have been executed under the old system. I wanted to intervene to point out that I was Mr. Paris's solicitor— r—

The Chairman: Order. What has that to do with the Chair?

Mr. Evans: The appeal process had not been completed and he was found not guilty in the course of the Court of Appeal hearing; he never would have suffered that penalty.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Shersby: I also happen to be an adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have a different list from that of the the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who has made a most remarkable speech. My list is the roll of honour of police officers who have lost their lives doing their duty, protecting the men and women of this country and keeping the Queen's peace.
I speak on behalf of my constituents in Uxbridge, on behalf of the vast majority of members of the Police

Federation whose views were expressed at their annual conference, and in support of new clause 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), because nothing will shake my belief that the existence of capital punishment is the only penalty that will deter criminals—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has described them—from carrying guns and knives with which they shoot, stab, slash and kill men and women such as those on the Police Federation's roll of honour.
Since capital punishment was abolished in this country, 70 police officers have lost their lives. In the past five years that I have been a parliamentary adviser, five officers have died defending the men and women of this country and keeping the Queen's peace. It is time that we did what my hon. and learned Friend suggested, and that is to take courage to restore the penalty and make certain that the killing of innocent men and women comes to an end.
In the past three years, the Conservative Government have taken through the Lobby members of the Cabinet in support of capital punishment for treason and piracy. Those capital offences remain on the statute book. Therefore, why do my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Cabinet think that the death penalty is a deterrent for treason and for acts of piracy but not, apparently, for the murder of a police officer?
Why did the Home Secretary release Witney five years before the end of his sentence for killing three police officers in Notting Hill—Christopher Head, David Wombwell and Geoffrey Fox—in 1966? Why was Anthony Jeffs released after killing PC Guthrie in 1972?
Such matters concern my constituents in Uxbridge and every decent policeman and policewoman in this country. They should concern every member of the House of Commons as it reaches its decision—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first new clause relating to capital punishment, THE CHAIRMAN put the question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to order [11 February].

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 383.

Division No. 134]
[6.37 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)


Ancram, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bendall, Vivian
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Burns, Simon
Durant, Sir Anthony


Butler, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Carttiss, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Cash, William
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Chapman, Sydney
Evennett, David


Churchill, Mr
Fabricant, Michael






Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moss, Malcolm


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forth, Eric
Norris, Steve


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Page, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Sir Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gale, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gallie, Phil
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gardiner, Sir George
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gillen, Cheryl
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Riddick, Graham


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hague, William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hanley, Jeremy
Sims, Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hargreaves, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hawkins, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hawksley, Warren
Speed, Sir Keith


Hendry, Charles
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Horam, John
Spink, Dr Robert


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Allan


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Michael
Sumberg, David


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thomason, Roy


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Tracey, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trotter, Neville


Lightbown, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


McCrea, Rev William
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maclean, David
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ward, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Marland, Paul
Watts, John


Marlow, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Whitney, Ray


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Whittingdale, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Widdecombe, Ann


Merchant, Piers
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Mills, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Sir Roger



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Monro, Sir Hector
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Mr. Michael Shersby.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashby, David


Ainger, Nick
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Austin-Walker, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allen, Graham
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bates, Michael





Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Donohoe, Brian H.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dowd, Jim


Benton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Ms Angela


Berry, Dr. Roger
Eastham, Ken


Betts, Clive
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Enright, Derek


Blair, Tony
Etherington, Bill


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burden, Richard
Fraser, John


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garnier, Edward


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Godsiff, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gorst, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Hall, Mike


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Congdon, David
Hardy, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harris, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Harvey, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hayes, Jerry


Corston, Ms Jean
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Couchman, James
Henderson, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Heppell, John


Cox, Tom
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cryer, Bob
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cummings, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoey, Kate


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davidson, Ian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Denham, John
Hoyle, Doug


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)






Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Meale, Alan


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Milburn, Alan


Hume, John
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Rhodri


Ingram, Adam
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jamieson, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Janner, Greville
Mudie, George


Jenkin, Bernard
Mullin, Chris


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Murphy, Paul


Johnston, Sir Russell
Nelson, Anthony


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Hara, Edward


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Olner, William


Jowell, Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Keen, Alan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ottaway, Richard


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Patchett, Terry


Khabra, Piara S.
Patten, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pickles, Eric


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pickthall, Colin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Pike, Peter L.


Kirkwood, Archy
Pope, Greg


Knox, Sir David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Legg, Barry
Prescott, John


Leighton, Ron
Primarolo, Dawn


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Purchase, Ken


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Lidington, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Richards, Rod


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Luff, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


McGrady, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


Maclennan, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madel, Sir David
Short, Clare


Maginnis, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Spring, Richard


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)





Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walley, Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stephen, Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Stern, Michael
Watson, Mike


Stevenson, George
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Willetts, David


Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wright, Dr Tony


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Turner, Dennis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyler, Paul



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. John McAllion.


Walden, George



Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then put the Question necessary to dispose of another new clause relating to capital punish-ment which had been selected by him.

New Clause 4

PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER

'(1) Subject to the following subsections the penalty for murder shall be death.

(2) No person aged under 18 years shall suffer the death penalty.

(3) As soon as practicable following a sentence of death, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal shall be convened to consider whether the circumstances of either

(a) the commission of the offence or
(b) the offender

whether or not such circumstances were adduced in evidence at the trial, are such as would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment in place of the sentence of death.'.—[Mrs. Peacock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 403.

Division No. 135]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry


Beggs, Roy
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fabricant, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carttiss, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Cash, William
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Chapman, Sydney
Forth, Eric


Clappison, James
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
French, Douglas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Fry, Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Gale, Roger






Gardiner, Sir George
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gill, Christopher
Patrick, Irvine


Gillan, Cheryl
Pawsey, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, William
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hanley, Jeremy
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hawkins, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Sims, Roger


Hendry, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Horam, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spink, Dr Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Key, Robert
Stewart, Allan


Kilfedder, Sir James
Streeter, Gary


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sumberg, David


Knapman, Roger
Sykes, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Leigh, Edward
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lord, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McCrea, Rev William
Tracey, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Trotter, Neville


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mans, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Marland, Paul
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Marlow, Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ward, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Whitney, Ray


Monro, Sir Hector
Whittingdale, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Neubert, Sir Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Phil Gallic


Norris, Steve
and Mr. Michael Shersby.


Paice, James





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Battle, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Andrew F.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Hilary
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boswell, Tim


Austin-Walker, John
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brandreth, Gyles


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Bates, Michael
Bright, Graham





Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burt, Alistair
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butler, Peter
Foulkes, George


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Canavan, Dennis
Garnier, Edward


Cann, Jamie
Garrett, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
George, Bruce


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gerrard, Neil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gorst, John


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coe, Sebastian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coffey, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Colvin, Michael
Hain, Peter


Congdon, David
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hanson, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Corbett, Robin
Harris, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Ms Jean
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cousins, Jim
Hayes, Jerry


Cox, Tom
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cryer, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Cummings, John
Heppell, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hinchliffe, David


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hoey, Kate


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Darling, Alistair
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Davidson, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Denham, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dewar, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dixon, Don
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dobson, Frank
Hoyle, Doug


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dowd, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dykes, Hugh
Hume, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Eastham, Ken
Hutton, John


Eggar, Tim
Illsley, Eric


Elletson, Harold
Ingram, Adam


Enright, Derek
Jack, Michael


Etherington, Bill
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jamieson, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Janner, Greviile


Faber, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fatchett, Derek
Johnston, Sir Russell






Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Murphy, Paul


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Nelson, Anthony


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jowell, Tessa
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Keen, Alan
O'Hara, Edward


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Olner, William


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Khabra, Piara S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Patchett, Terry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Kirkwood, Archy
Pickles, Eric


Knox, Sir David
Pickthall, Colin


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Pike, Peter L.


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Pope, Greg


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Legg, Barry
Powell, William (Corby)


Leighton, Ron
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Prescott, John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Terry
Purchase, Ken


Lidington, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Rathbone, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Luff, Peter
Richards, Rod


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Lynne, Ms Liz
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McGrady, Eddie
Rooney, Terry


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


McMaster, Gordon
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sedgemore, Brian


Madel, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maginnis, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mallon, Seamus
Short, Clare


Malone, Gerald
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soames, Nicholas


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Speed, Sir Keith


Merchant, Piers
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spring, Richard


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stephen, Michael


Morley, Elliot
Stern, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Dr. Gavin





Straw, Jack
Watson, Mike


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Thomason, Roy
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winnick, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wise, Audrey


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Vaz, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. John McAllion.


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO

SEXUAL ACTS BETWEEN MEN

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "sixteen".

(2) in section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "sixteen".

(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Mrs. Currie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 5—Age at which homosexual acts are lawful—

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Mrs. Currie.]

New clause 6—Amendment of the law relating to sexual acts between men—
'. (1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of the law relating to homosexual acts in private) for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs is substituted "seventeen".
(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences) for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "seventeen".
(3) No proceedings shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions against any man for an offence under sections 12, 13, 15 or 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission whether either of the men was at the time of its commission under the age of twenty-one.
(4) This section shall come into force on the date on which this Act is passed.'

Mrs. Currie: The purpose of the new clause is to make the age of consent the same for everyone. I understand that it will be the subject of the first of a series of Divisions.
This is an historic debate. It is the first time in over a quarter of a century that the age of consent for


homosexuals has been discussed by the House of Commons. The taboo of silence that has denied the sexuality of young gay men has been decisively broken. Tonight's free vote establishes the question as a matter of conscience—as it should be—and the huge number of hon. Members who will support the new clause will demonstrate that it is not an issue for gay men alone, and no longer a minority issue, but one of human rights, which touches us all.
Homosexuality in this country is subject to enforced discrimination, which is now out of date, indefensible and way out of line with the rest of the civilised world. The age at which gay sex is permitted in Britain, at 21, is the highest in the world, other than in places like Byelorussia and Serbia, where it is still totally illegal. Most nations have the same age of consent for straight and for gay sexual activity —and have done for years, even centuries—with no problems at all. They do not bother to make any distinction, even when the age is lower than it is here.
We need only cross the channel to see that this is the case. In France, Greece, Poland, Sweden and Denmark the common age is 15; in Italy, it is 14; in Malta, Spain and Holland, it is 12. Those are prime destinations, it should be pointed out, for the 33 million Brits who go abroad every year on holiday or business. Germany has announced that it will equalise the age of consent at 16; the Republic of Ireland did so last year, at 17. None of these nations is troubled, as we appear almost uniquely to be, by the notion that a common age of consent causes peculiar difficulties. The fact is that it does not.
The United Kingdom is likely to have to change its law before much longer, for a case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights on equality grounds, with an excellent chance of success. The Government have already been told that they have a case to answer, and they must give their response before the end of March. The European Court of Human Rights, which we helped to set up in 1953, is likely to rule in favour of equality, as it has done in similar cases in respect of other countries, which have complied. Surely it is better for us to change our law in the House of Commons, on a free vote, than to be forced to conform, possibly in an election year.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue, of all issues, is one of principle and that the Committee ought not to take a decision on grounds of expediency or comparisons? Should not the House of Commons protect the young men of the nation?

Mrs. Currie: Of course, it is a matter of principle. If my hon. Friend bears with me, I shall deal with his point in a moment.
This is an all-party new clause, and other hon. Members will put forward their points of view. As a lifelong Tory, I can only say that I believe that the state should be kept out of the personal lives of the men and women of this country. Everyone is entitled to his or her privacy. What my neighbours get up to in private is their business and not mine, and it is not for the state to interfere. If we are to have a nation at ease with itself and a nation at the heart of Europe, the unpleasant homophobic nature of current legislation must be changed—and the sooner, the better.
I may be told that public opinion is not with us. If there is one thing that is very clear it is that the polls are

confusing and that we should not rely on them. The poll in yesterday's Sunday Times showed that many people still want to ban homosexuality altogether; others want equality, but at a different, higher, age. Since the age of consent for the rest of us has been 16 since 1885, that is somewhat unrealistic. It is interesting that once respondents know a gay man, attitudes change dramatically and bigotry disappears. We in this Chamber all know at least one gay man—possibly more. In any case, we are here to lead public opinion as well as to follow it.
In a poll last year, 83 per cent. of the public stated that they were in favour of capital punishment. That did not stop a huge majority of hon. Members voting the other way a few moments ago. Our constituents send us here with our brains intact, and we should be using them.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend and I are both positive Europeans, but I do not see what the situation elsewhere in Europe has to do with this debate. I do not think that her analogy with what goes on in other countries is relevant. Does she agree—if not, perhaps she will explain why—that there is no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality?

Mrs. Currie: I was merely pointing out that in countries where there has been a common age of consent for a long time, none of the problems that we are told will arise if we have a common age has arisen.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Currie: No. I must move on, as this is a very short debate in which many hon. Members want to take part.
In this country there are also people who dislike, even abhor, homosexuality. They are entitled to campaign for those opinions. We have all been bombarded with St. Paul and Leviticus, and we have been accused of joining the forces of Satan. Such views are held with passionate sincerity—of course they are—but the people who hold them are not entitled to insist that their prejudices be written into British law. Oscar Wilde pointed out that one cannot make men moral by law; that all one can do is criminalise their preferences. We have no right to do that.
We can argue long and hard about principle—

Mr. Tim Devlin: My hon. Friend cannot be saying seriously that we should allow anybody to indulge any preference. I do not think that she can mean genuinely what she has just said. Surely she recognises that there are many activities—for example, child abuse—which individuals find pleasing but which the rest of society does not recognise as valid. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Currie: I think that my hon. Friend's remark has been treated with the contempt it deserves.
The law is not only prejudicial and discriminatory; it is painfully effective. Hon. Members on my side of the debate cannot argue that the law is ignored. On the contrary, it is widely, if erratically, employed. Between 1988 and 1991, there were more than 2,000 arrests for offences involving consensual sex with men under 21 years of age. Even in 1992, as the research of the House of Commons Library shows, men were still being committed to prison for consensual acts with other men. The fear of being arrested and questioned, and perhaps cautioned or charged, is real and ever present.
Last year, three young men—Will Parry, Hugo Greenhalgh and Ralph Wilde—announced that they were to take their case, on equality grounds, to the European Court. Two of them—Hugo and Will, who are lovers—spoke openly on television. I understand that they were promptly reported to the police by a self-appointed guardian of public morality, Mr. Stephen Green. The police may have been deeply embarrassed about the whole affair, but because the complaint had been made it had to be investigated. The young men found themselves in Rochester Row police station for several hours, and they were subjected to the most intimate and intrusive personal questioning. Eventually, they were released, and no prosecution has been brought.
Had such an episode occurred to a heterosexual couple, we should all have been appalled. We ought to be just as disgusted that in 1994 this can still happen to gay men.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is totally unacceptable that the Committee should take the view that young men ought to be protected longer than young women? If young women, with the age of consent set at 16, are suitably protected, there is no reason whatever why the same age should not apply to men, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Mrs. Currie: I agree entirely. Time permitting, I shall deal with that matter in greater detail.
Who can doubt the intimidatory effect of incidents of the sort that I have just mentioned? Intimidation and deterrence are, after all, the purpose of this law. The result is extremely damaging. It inhibits young men from seeking help, whether through counselling, health advice or sex education. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which supports the new clause, tells us that young gay men are noticeable by their absence from the citizens advice bureaux. They are too scared to come forward and ask for help. That applies even if they have been subjected to muggings or theft. Giving evidence against an assailant would involve identifying themselves as breaking the criminal law, so they do not come forward. Thus, the law has the opposite effect to what many hon. Members want.
We are all genuinely worried about protecting vulnerable youngsters. It is a concern shared by all hon. Members. But a law that keeps people silent and means that they are unable to lodge a complaint is not a protective shield. It is an enforcer of their silence. It is a gag, and it is likely to leave them that much more open to abuse, pressure, harassment, blackmail and extortion.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, I shall not.
It is not as if the law enforcement agencies are looking for work. We should be wary of burdening them at a time when genuine crime is causing so much worry. In my view as a Tory, our police force, magistrates, courts and judges should be well enough occupied pursuing the real thugs and thieves who are creating misery and mayhem throughout the land.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Currie: I cannot resist my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is seeking to persuade hon. Members to vote to legalise the buggery of adolescent males. Does she think that that is what our constituents have sent us here to do?

Mrs. Currie: I merely repeat that I do not consider the private sexual practices of other people, including the hon. Gentleman, to be any business of the law. The debate in recent weeks has taught me that one person's sexual perversion is another person's preferred sexual practice. We should all be careful about pronouncing on what goes on next door.
I shall now turn to the subject of health education. It exasperates me that the moment that anyone mentions gay sex, AIDS comes up in the next breath. When we see a heterosexual couple. we do not instantly think of gonorrhoea; we see people trying to form a long-term relationship, caring about each other and falling in love. Nevertheless, as a former Health Minister, I have a particular concern. How can we advise young gay men about the dangers of AIDS, how can we talk to them straight about safer sex, when what they are doing is supposed to be strictly against the law? When the campaign against AIDS began in 1986, Ministers had to take a deep breath and tell health care workers to ignore the law, and to reach out to men at risk in whichever way they could. That was highly unsatisfactory and hostile to any type of progress.
The Government tell us that they want to reduce the level of sexually transmitted disease—so do we all. The British Medical Association, whose council recently voted overwhelmingly to support the new clause, considers:
criminalisation of homosexual activity may inhibit health education and healthcare.
It continues:
There is no convincing medical reason against reducing the age of consent for male homosexuals to 16 years, and to do so may yield positive health benefits.
The World Health Organisation said:
People who hide their sexual orientation for fear of discrimination or alienation … are placed in situations that are not conducive to safe sexual practices.
On 22 January, The Lancet stated:
All young people need safer sex education but the needs of young homosexual men are not being met. This worrying disparity may arise both directly and indirectly from the current legislation.
A survey in 1992 for the North West Thames regional health authority of the HIV prevention initiatives in the United Kingdom, most of which are paid for by the Government, showed that most agencies conducted no work for young gay and bisexual men; when asked why not, half the agencies reported that it was due to the possible illegality of the work.

Mr. Brazier: Has my hon. Friend seen the figures from America, where different states have a range of approaches to the age of consent and gay rights? Does she know that in those states and cities, such as San Francisco, where the laws are most liberal, the incidence not only of AIDS but of hepatitis A, hepatitis B and gay bowel syndrome is vastly higher than in those states that have tight laws on homosexuality?

Mrs. Currie: I am after not gay rights but equal rights for everyone. If my hon. Friend considers my argument for one moment, he may agree that, if we are to improve health


education for young people, it is deeply unhelpful when the law makes them criminals first. We must make progress on the matter.
My arguments do not apply only to sex education. According to the Government's "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, Ministers also wish to reduce the incidence of suicide and attempted suicide, which in Britain is among the highest in the world. The best way to achieve the two objectives of a fall in the rate of HIV and AIDS and in the rate of suicide is to have open, intelligent, well-trained, well-informed talk, advice and support. The worst way is to turn our young people into criminals in the way that we do. When colleagues say that changing the age of consent will give the wrong signals, I hope that they will also recognise that young men and those trying to help them receive the wrong signals from the law as it stands. Those against the new clause cannot have it both ways —either the law is ineffective, in which case it serves no purpose but to institutionalise ignorance and it should be swept away, or it works and it hurts, in which case it is dangerous and unfair.
We have already heard it said tonight that there is a difference in maturity between boys and girls. As a former teacher, it seems to me that differences exist at 11 and 13 years of age, but they have largely disappeared by the time young people reach 15 and 16. That was the conclusion of the Wolfenden report back in 1957. It said:
Our medical witnesses were unanimously of the view that the main sexual pattern is laid down in the early years of life and the majority of them held that it was usually fixed in main outline by the age of 16. Many held that it was fixed much earlier.
If there were any truth in the idea that boys are not as mature as girls in their later teens, that would be an argument for a higher age of consent for all boys, not just for some of them. There is not a country in the world that takes that line. It is nonsense and, in any case, it is the weakest possible ground for invoking the criminal law against the young people involved.

Mr. Bill Walker: On the issue of equality before the law, does the hon. Lady realise that it is neither natural nor normal to carry out homosexual activity? That is why there has to be protection for young boys. It is a different matter if they participate in that which is normal and natural, but if they are guided into activities that are neither normal nor natural, protection is required.

Mrs. Currie: I recognise that my hon. Friend has deeply held and sincere views on the matter and I respect them, but in the past much the same thing has been said about practices such as divorce and contraception, and we do not now make laws banning them. I am not going to persuade my hon. Friend and, with respect, he is probably not going to persuade me.
We are debating not physical maturity but the ability, in law, of a person to understand, and to give or withhold consent. The age at which children in this country are held to tell the difference between right and wrong is 10. Recently, children of 11 years of age were convicted of murder on the ground that they knew what they were doing. The age at which a boy can be held to be guilty of rape was recently reduced from 14 to 10. In law, a young man is old enough at 16 to decide to sleep with his girlfriend and even to marry her, yet, if he is the other way

inclined, he is judged to be absolutely incapable of making up his own mind. Frankly, I think that that is nuts. There is no logical or biological argument for discrimination.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: I shall be delighted to.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Lady agree that we are really talking about emotional maturity? A 16-year-old boy may be troubled by his growing sexuality and be unsettled and frightened of girls. He may not be doing well at school and could be strongly pressured by the militant gay lobby. Therefore, he should be protected.

Mrs. Currie: With respect to my hon. Friend, in those circumstances the worst possible thing that we can do is to make the boy a criminal, but that is what we do. There are better ways to protect our young people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I am conscious of the fact that we have only a short time and that many hon. Members wish to speak.
I wish to tackle one other chestnut that I heard on the radio today. Someone claimed that changing the law would result in rapacious, middle-aged homosexuals hanging around school gates, waiting to seduce young boys. A part of me says that that probably tells us a lot about the peculiar attitudes of middle-aged people rather than about the behaviour of the young. No one seems equally bothered about rapacious, middle-aged heterosexuals chasing young girls. This is still an extraordinarily macho society.
I wonder whether anyone ever talks to young people. Most of them are inevitably and naturally seeking relationships with people of their own age. One year is the average age gap between partners at their first sexual experience. The idea that teenagers might be hugely and secretly attracted—for preference—to some wrinkled old biddy, old enough to be a parent or grandparent, is preposterous and offensive to most people.

Mrs. Peacock: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way [Interruption]—I must tell the House that I am not yet a grandmother. As a mother, how did the hon. Lady study her family and the boys who grew up in it? Does she have any idea of the immaturity of 16-year-old boys? If she does not, some of us do.

Mrs. Currie: I repeat the answer that I gave earlier. Of course, young people are immature, but that is not an argument for making them criminals. It is an argument for talking to them, setting them a good example and respecting their sexuality, especially when they tell us that they know their own minds and wish to be left alone. It seems to me that that is what we should do.
The serious point is this: British courts and juries have at last begun to accept that in sexual encounters consent means consent and no should mean no. Refusal then has the power to turn any unwanted act from a flirtation to a criminal offence and that should apply not only to 16-year-old boys and girls but to anyone, male or female, at any age. Only then can we seriously claim to be shielding the vulnerable or the uncertain, whether gay or straight, with the protection of a sensible and balanced law.

Ms Mildred Gordon: It is legal for 16-year-old boys to enter into a relationship that could result in their fathering a child, but does the hon. Lady agree that that requires greater maturity and has longer and more serious consequences than entering into a homosexual relationship, if they are so inclined?

Mrs. Currie: I suppose that I agree that all growing up requires more maturity than any of us has at the time. The most foolish thing that we can do is to turn people into criminals at that age. There is no logical, biological or medical basis for treating some young boys differently in law to others and it does not make any sense.

Mr. John Butterfill: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I am about to finish my speech, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way.
The image of gay men is at last changing. They are men whom we know, work with and whose work we admire. They are business men, civil servants, artists, actors, soldiers, judges, bishops, priests, peers and Members of Parliament. We all know someone who is gay, even if he has not yet declared himself. It is time to take the dark shadow and turn it into a human being; it is time to seize our homophobic instincts and chuck them on the scrap heap of history where they belong. In a free society the onus to prove that restricting freedom is in the nation's interests is on those who would discriminate. That is impossible to prove. Equality is the only worthwhile and sustainable position. No compromises will satisfy those people whom they affect. There is no such thing as partial equality; people are either equal or they are not.
Tonight, we have the opportunity to be proud of the House and to bring our country into the modern world. We have the chance to remove discrimination and to challenge the injustice facing our fellow citizens; we have the choice of voting for equal rights under the law and for the same law for everyone. The time has come.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I must make another appeal. Even more hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate, so short speeches please.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I shall do my best to respond positively to your appeal, Mr. Morris, in the interests of the Committee and in defiance of my record.
I support new clause 3, moved by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), and I pay tribute to the way in which she has worked to ensure this debate. I hope that she will have the reward of achieving a necessary reform to the law.
I support the new clause, which provides for an age of consent for sexual relations common to both men and women, on three main grounds. First, it is equitable to treat both sexes the same. Secondly, it is rational to legislate for equal treatment, in terms of both sexual orientation and enforcement of the law. Thirdly, it is wise to decriminalise consensual sexual activity above the age of 16 at a time when the fearful disease AIDS has to be fought with all the information, counselling and promotion of greater safety in sexual relationships that we can muster or bring to bear as a consequence of our activities in the House.
I shall develop each of those arguments, but I must first emphasise an essential general principle: all that I say and

all that is said by everyone who favours reform, whatever age and the amendment that they prefer, refers to consensual sexual relations. The essential purpose of supporting change in the law is to remove the threat of prosecution and punishment for engaging in sexual activity, which to them is natural, from homosexual males above the age of 16. The purpose is emphatically not to provide any opportunity or excuse to anyone—heterosexual or homosexual—who seeks to impose his or her sexual will on anyone else.
I arrived at the decision that I should support the new clause and the common age of consent of 16 in two stages. It became obvious to me, as it did to many hon. Members, that the age of consent, which was fixed at 21 in 1967, has long failed to deal with the realities of sexual orientation and civil liberties. There are significant difficulties in enforcing the law credibly and injustices and dangers inherent in continuing a system that criminalises male homosexuals before the age of 21.
Having reached that conclusion, I was faced with the question, "What is the most appropriate legal age of consent if it is not 21?" The compromise of 18 automatically suggested itself. It is the age of majority and the age at which young men seem most able to decide for themselves about their sexual orientation. In short, it is not only the legal age of majority, but the biological age of maturity. It seemed to me to be a view that was sensible as an alternative to the current legal provision, liberal in terms of the accommodation of personal convictions and sexual orientation and realistic in terms of an individual's right to privacy.
Then, just when I was comfortable with that, the facts began to intervene. I had made the assumption that young men and young women were somehow more able to determine their sexuality at 16 if they were heterosexual. Because of that, I assumed that the heterosexual age of consent could reasonably remain lower than the homosexual age of consent. On reflection, however, it became difficult for me to convince myself that there was a difference in the capacity to decide among 16-year-olds.
If I and the majority of other heterosexual men knew our sexual orientation by the age of 16, why should not homosexuals be equally sure of their sexual orientation? The evidence has long existed to prove that people are sure, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said. The Wolfenden report, published 37 years ago, concluded:
The main sexual pattern is laid down in the early years of life and … usually fixed by the age of 16.
More recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists reported its long-held view:
there is no developmental reason to treat young men and young women differently
in the law relating to the age of consent. Project Sigma, jointly financed by the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council, proffered strong evidence that homosexual orientation was fixed and well understood by homosexuals by their mid teens. The British Medical Association holds the same view.
That evidence and other reliable, responsible material persuaded me that it would be wrong to continue to discriminate in the law between men who are homosexual and those who are heterosexual. It would also be wrong to continue to discriminate in the law between young men who are homosexual and young women who are heterosexual.
As a father, I must say that I was equally exercised about the prospect of my daughter and son engaging in heterosexual relations at 16. No father could think otherwise. Frankly, I just hope that had it been the case that either of my children had proved to be of homosexual orientation, I could have shown them the love and understanding, as their parent, as several parents already do to their children in similar circumstances. I was not offered that test, for which I frankly give thanks. Faced with that prospect, however, as children grow up, who could conclude that we should discriminate in the law between different kinds of young people of different sexes on the basis of sexual orientation when we know that heterosexual relationships carry at least as much danger, as much menace and as much threat to young people's moral values as homosexual relationships?

Mr. Lord: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he gives thanks that his children are not homosexual?

Mr. Kinnock: For the very reason that is understood by all heterosexuals: homosexuals in our society and in others are a minority. They are regarded as an isolated group. They do not have children. Moreover, in our society, even at the age of 16, they are regarded as criminals if they engage in sexual activity. That is a fair accumulation of reasons for not wanting one's children to be homosexual. We do not, however, have any control over it. That is at the essence of the new clause.
The supposition that somehow homosexuals are made or converted from heterosexuality is not sustained by medical evidence or by any unprejudiced examination of the facts or experience of normal life.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock: I shall do so in a moment, but I want to respond to the appeal of Mr. Morris.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said, other comparable democracies have based their laws on judgments about discrimination. In Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland the common age of consent is 16. Germany is about to legislate for just such a change. I do not refer to those other countries to offer a simple argument for emulation, but to draw attention to the fact that a common age of consent at 16 has not damaged those societies or corrupted their youth. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe that a change to a common age of consent at 16 would introduce decadence or corruption into our society.
7.45 pm
Whatever the age of consent in any society, it must be capable of enforcement. In our democracy, that means that it must offer justice and practicality. Neither of those conditions is properly satisfied now. The fact that males between the ages of 16 and 21 break the law if they have homosexual relations, and homosexuals over the age of 21 break the law if they have relations with anyone under the age of 21, poses obvious difficulties in deciding culpability. Those difficulties would be intensified if the age of consent were reduced to 18, since it is clear from all sexual relationships that most encounters among young people are with contemporaries or near-contemporaries.
The confusions in the present system, which result in formal or informal decisions not to prosecute homosexuals, are just one reason for the consensus in favour of reform of the age of consent from 21. It would be best for us to ensure that those confusions are not deepened and made even more complex by fixing an age that is not practical or, in reality, enforceable with fairness.

Mr. Butterfill: I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman has said. On the issue of criminality, I do not recall any girl under 16 being prosecuted for engaging in a sexual relationship. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should not be the young person who becomes the criminal in this process, but the older person who has sexual relations with him?

Mr. Kinnock: I must reply to that briefly, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that any amount of evidence proves that homosexuals are not made or corrupted by their elders. They are not converted to homosexuality by having sexual encounters with older people who are also homosexuals.
What we need to do, and for which I shall continue to argue, is to extend the protection of decriminalisation to young men of 16 and above who are homosexuals. They are denied that now. I know that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and many other hon. Members want to ensure that young men as well as young women are afforded as much protection as the House can offer. That is why they should have the protection of legality and should not be criminalised into disguising their relations and sexuality.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock: In all other circumstances I would be glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but time does not permit that.
It is clear on the basis of their experience in this matter of criminalisation that the police forces do not feel sufficiently exercised by homosexual activity to adopt policies that oppose a change in the law. Some senior officers have, of course, registered their view that a common age of consent would have the advantage of equity. For them and for others in the police service, the main focus of concern is the opportunity for blackmail and bullying and the reluctance of homosexuals to co-operate with police inquiries. Many of those problems result from criminalising homosexuality and police officers know it. That criminalisation of homosexuality provided the conclusive argument in persuading me to support the change in the law to a common age of consent at 16.
The very fact of criminality inhibits young men from reporting crimes against them. It is also a factor in the emotional misery and isolation endured by young homosexual men. But apart from those psychological pressures, which sometimes end in the terrible tragedies of suicide and attempted suicide, the Health Education Authority, Barnardo's and Project Sigma are just three of the knowledgeable bodies that inform us that the present criminality of homosexual relationships can limit health promotion activities among the social group most vulnerable to HIV infection and AIDS: young homosexual men.
Last month the council of the British Medical Association published a report on the age of consent for


homosexual men which is bound to impress all but the most prejudiced minds. In concluding that the age of consent for homosexual men should be lowered to 16, the BMA council said that homosexual young men might not receive appropriate advice if the criminal status of homosexual relationships remains because, they fear, seeking professional advice from doctors, teachers and so on would be to admit committing a crime. Secondly, it said:
Support groups or youth organisations for homosexual men aged 16–20, where they exist at all, tend to keep a low profile and avoid drawing attention to themselves
because they do not want to be accused of encouraging criminality. Thirdly,
'official' homosexual community organisations and clubs operate a clear over-21 policy to comply with the present law. This means that younger men are denied access to the advice which such organisations can provide and are less exposed to the social climate within the organised homosexual community, which strongly supports 'safer sex'.
Finally, the BMA Council said:
They feel stigmatised and regarded as not part of the broader society due to to the criminalisation of their sexual behaviour.
Those are frequently young people who are locked out. They are faced with appalling trauma, criminalised to the point where they are fearful of reporting offences against themselves, and inhibited from discussing their sexuality with others and gaining the appropriate counselling and advice. Surely we need to change the law to facilitate a change in their approach to protecting themselves and in the protection that we would seek to afford them.

Mr. Gorst: I have not yet decided how I shall vote and the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my question may be decisive. I agree with all that he has said about reducing the age of consent to 16, but one point has not been answered: in our society, should we be so far ahead of public opinion that the public feel that we have gone too far?

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for how he puts his point. Everyone who has been elected to the House knows that, in some cases, we follow public opinion. But in others, it is our duty to step slightly ahead, although not so far as to make ourselves invisible to the public. If, in 1967, our predecessors in the House had waited for a consensus of public opinion before supporting a change in the law, we would still have total criminalisation of homosexual behaviour.
I am certain that, like me, the hon. Gentleman regards the change that came about 26 or 27 years ago to have been an advantage for our society. In the quarter of a century that has passed, we have come to realise, as the Wolfenden report did a long time before 1967, that people determine their sexual orientation before reaching the age of 16. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and take the further step of admitting that it is wrong that the behaviour of people following the orientation that is natural to them should be criminalised. I ask the House to do no more in 1994 than it was wise enough to do in 1967, bearing in mind our greater understanding of mores, habits and orientations in our society.
If passed, the new clause would help to protect young men. It would provide them with a basic legal framework for making vital decisions about themselves without the danger of criminality. We all know in our hearts that morality is not learnt from criminal law. No one will adopt a homosexual way of life just because he is free to do so at the age of 16, rather than 21 or 18. But if we do not make

that change, lives will continue to be broken by continuing criminal prosecutions, fear and the underwriting of prejudice by criminal sanctions.
Let us tell young people that a heterosexual life, in the sense that it is what most of us live and want to live, is the norm; that it is and will remain the basic human relationship upon which the family is founded. But let us also tell young homosexuals that we still have regard for them and want them to live in a society that accepts their nature and will give them the same chance as others for personal happiness. We shall not tolerate discrimination against them and they need not feel fear and outlawed. Let us tell them that they can participate as fully as anyone else in the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship
The new clause is about all that. It is also about encouraging respect for those who are different—one of the basic tests of our democracy. It is about tolerance, equality before the law, and the free, secure and pluralistic society which we want to build, whatever else divides us in the House. I hope that the new clause will enjoy the support of the Committee.

Sir Anthony Durant: I support new clause 5, which seeks to lower the age of consent to 18.
May I point out that there are only three activities left that are restricted to the age of 21: first, holding a licence for a heavy goods vehicle; secondly, engaging in homosexual acts between males; and, thirdly and most interesting to hon. Members, being elected as a Member of Parliament. Those are the only three activities that still disbar people under the age of 21.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Anthony Durant: Already?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I remind my hon. Friend that there are many other such activities, including going to an X-certificate picture without one's parents?

Sir Anthony Durant: I know something about the film industry and believe that one can do that at the age of 18, but I shall not argue with my hon. and learned Friend.
The argument seems to range between the ages of 16 and 18. Some people would like to leave the law as it stands, but I do not support that view. Much of the argument on this subject is simply based on opinion. Many young people are still sexually uncertain and often disturbed between the ages of 16 and 18.
In a talk-in programme on the radio yesterday, an interesting man said that when he was at university he shared a house in which everyone was homosexual except him. He did not become homosexual, but said that he felt under pressure—[Interruption.] I merely pass on that information for the Committee's consideration.
The organisation known as Relate, which used to be known as the Marriage Guidance Council, was quoted in The Guardian of 14 January.
Sixteen is rather young, as during early and middle adolescence sexual orientation is not always settled and there is often a lot of confusion. Eighteen therefore is a more appropriate age … So many young people embark on sexual relationships far too early and get hurt.
Those were the words of Relate's director, and we should consider that valid point.

8 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the hon. Gentleman feel certain in his own sexual orientation at the age of 16? If so, and assuming that it was a heterosexual orientation, does he not think that a young man of 16 could feel certain that, in his sexual orientation, he was gay?

Sir Anthony Durant: I do not agree. I believe that youngsters in that age group are confused about their sexuality.

Mr. Banks: Was the hon. Gentleman?

Sir Anthony Durant: I do not remember that I was. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman should remember that I am a pensioner.
If the age of consent is reduced to 16, we shall have to amend section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which concerns teaching the subject of homosexuality in schools.
The Home Office Policy Advisory Committee document, "Report on Age of Consent in Relation to Sexual Offences", stated:
between the ages of 16 and 18 girls are more mature than boys in their approach to sexual relationships and that, insofar as it is possible to generalise, boys have caught up with the girls in the process of maturing by the age of 18 … This last line of argument could suggest that boys under 18 should be protected from heterosexual intercourse as well as homosexual relations. However, we feel that it is far easier for them to cope with the usual complexities"—
and those complexities exists, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—
of youthful heterosexual relationships, which are accepted by parents, friends and society, than the greater complexity of homosexual relationships with all the difficulties and pressures involved.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend omitted to mention that that report was published in 1981—13 years ago, at a time when it seemed impossible to budge the age of consent even below 21. Is it not more appropriate today, at a time of AIDS and of recognition that there should be sex education for young people, to consider whether criminalisation of any kind is useful?

Sir Anthony Durant: I accept my hon. Friend's point that the report is old, but it remains of importance and I am prepared still to consider the advisory committee's findings. It made valid points that I pray in aid because they support my own view.
There is concern among many people about older men approaching young boys. I know that has never been proved one way or the other, but it is part of our duty. as Members of Parliament to protect the young and, whether or not we have evidence of such a thing happening, there is a chance that such situations do arise.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Anthony Durant: I must continue, because the Chair gave an edict about getting on with it, and I have decided to get on with it.
An interesting article by the Archbishop of York appeared in The Independent on 18 February:
For young people the absence of clear boundaries can be particularly damaging. One of the interesting results from the Wellcome survey of sexual attitudes is the number who felt that they had had sexual experience far too young … Those who are persuaded that there are no distinctions to be drawn between homosexuality and hetrosexuality will find no difficulty in reducing the age of consent to 16. As one who holds that there is

a distinction, rooted not only in those biological differences but in the belief that there are proper and improper uses for the human body, I would not want a signal to be sent to young people that sexual choices are of no concern to anybody but themselves. Nor do I want to maintain unreasonable laws that are largely ignored and which sometimes, in the hands of the vindictive or the unscrupulous lead to tragic convictions. I hope Parliament will reduce the age of consent to 18, thus signalling that homosexuality in young men is neither to be treated as uncontroversial nor to be penalised beyond the age of maturity. A reduction of three years will provide an opportunity to assess the social consequences.
That is why I am keen that we should consider reducing the age of consent to 18, to move some way towards the change for which some people are pressing, but also to the age of male maturity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) kept quoting Europe at me, but I do not take much notice of that. We are still a sovereign state and this Parliament must take the decision—not people sitting in Brussels or anywhere else. I believe that 18 is the right age, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 6, which proposes that the age of consent for gay relationships should be 17. Tonight's debate is limited to relationships between men, but an identical new clause is proposed that would make 17 the age of consent for heterosexual relationships.
One important consideration is already reflected in criminal law. There should be no prosecution or criminalisation of young people under the age of 21—and the law has parallels—who are part of a relationship. The criminal is the person who, with age and authority, enters into a relationship with a considerably younger person. That should be the sole criminal offence retained on the statute book, with one addition. Sex with youngsters of either sex below a certain age should be an absolute offence. In that way, we would protect youngsters below the age of 14, 13 or whatever it might be. I take the view that the age of majority also ought to be 17, but we cannot debate and vote on that today.
Out of fairness, it would be appropriate and otherwise unjust to specify a different age in any case for different parts of the United Kingdom. I am conscious that a different legal situation obtains in Northern Ireland.
If any new clause is passed, it will be returned by the Government in a redrafted form. We would be presented with the Government's version of the decision of the Committee.

Mrs. Currie: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady indicates otherwise, but my understanding is that the Government would want a technically more perfect option.

Mrs. Currie: We all took a great deal of careful advice, and I was assured that the clauses are in order. It may happen—and I hope that it will—that the Government will take note of the views expressed by the Committee, because there might have to ge a good deal of other messing around. Tonight's debate, however, concerns the age of consent.

Mr. Hughes: If the new clause is in order, the hon. Lady is right. I share her view, and I hope that we will return to deal with the rest of the muddle. We should take the Bill as an opportunity to sort out other aspects.
Right hon. and hon. Members are clear that they speak only from their own position in this debate. I must be clear not to misrepresent others. My party's view is that the age of consent should be reduced to 16, equally for both sexes.
I agree entirely with the principle of equality. My only concern—I address my comments to colleagues who may yet be undecided, as I have been for a long time, about how to vote on these options—is whether 16 is too young. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) addressed that issue. The task for us, therefore, is to try to resolve the matters that are not capable of proof, only judgment. We cannot tonight have a convincing answer that says that one conclusion is inevitable, or that the argument is only on one side.
It seems to me that there are three considerations that we should weigh. The first is equality; the second is protection of the young and vulnerable; the third is criminality. I shall speak briefly first on the subject of equality. The question that we are all asking ourselves is whether the circumstances and situations are similar for young men who want a relationship with another young man, and for young men and women who want relationships with each other. Are they similar, if not identical? One could argue the question either way. The most telling argument, however, is that some young people who, at the moment, are criminalised by the law and who, even if the law were changed to 18, would still be in a different position in relation to the criminal law, know that they will still be treated like second-class citizens. If a group in our society can show with justification that the law treats them differently, we must address that. The more important point is that if we retain on the statute book something that discriminates because of orientation between one person and another, we are making a statement about the inequality as citizens of that group for all their activities at whatever age.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. Another hon. Member asked first. Let me finish this point.
It seems to me that there is an absolutely overwhelming requirement to be just to people for whom the law at the moment is unjust.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to press him on the question of criminality, on which I pressed the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). I am slightly puzzled. Can he give an example where a young person in a relationship involving an older person has been prosecuted? I agree entirely that it would be wrong for the young person to be prosecuted.

Mr Hughes: It may be my own inadequacy, but I am not entirely clear about the hon. Gentleman's question. I intend in a moment to deal with criminality. I hope that I will answer the question. I apologise in advance if I do not answer it entirely.
Another thing that follows from equality. If we come to the conclusion that we need to treat heterosexual and

homosexual people in relationships equally, it follows that, as a society, we should allow settled couples to register as being settled couples. The state should allow that. If we believe in stability of relationships, as opposed to changing relationships, we should address that question at some stage, whether for tax purposes, immigration or whatever.

Mr. Devlin: Marriage.

Mr. Hughes: No. Of course, there is a separate argument about marriage. The answer to both questions is that marriage is something that is specifically taken and inherited from a position of Christian faith. It applies also in other faith doctrines. In many countries, a civic ceremony, entirely separate from the religious ceremony, recognises partnership. Some countries do just that, too. I do not want to be distracted by this, but I shall make the point that we must not be naive or dishonest about pretending that there are no other issues on the agenda. The important point is to decide the matters that are subject to equality.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, because I have been asked, as we all have, to be as brief as possible.
I hope that hon. Members will come to the conclusion, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn did, that equality is a principle which is not only difficult to oppose but one that must be supported. Of course, that would mean, as of tonight, a law at 16, because for heterosexual relationships that is what it is.
My second point is about protection of the vulnerable. We clearly have a duty in the House to protect young people as they grow up. There must be an absolute age, below which any sexual relationship with a youngster is one to which that youngster cannot give consent. Anyone who engages in a relationship with that youngster must be punished, and punished hard. There is then an age when people are growing up. It is impossible to police a protection mechanism to keep young people from each other. It is practically impossible, unenforceable and, I would argue, unworkable, to prevent 15, 16 and 17-year-olds from having relationships between each other, or between one age and another of close age. We should not try to do that. We certainly should not criminalise those who are having a relationship with someone of their own near age range as part of their experimental period of growing up.
We should, of course, seek to ensure that young people —the point has been made in interventions—are not the victims of significantly older people who go looking for young people, not because they want a permanent relationship but simply for their own personal gratification. Young people need that protection when they are growing up. That applies also to young women, who are equally in need of protection against the older person seeking to seduce them for personal pleasure.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Dail discussed this issue in the teeth of formidable opposition in Dublin and elsewhere. They reached the conclusion, led by Ms Geoghegan Quinn, that there should be a common age


of consent of 17 years. Does he think that a common age of consent of 17 years would be an acceptable compromise?

Mr. Hughes: I share the view that the Irish Parliament came to recently. The opinion poll that was published yesterday in The Sunday Times showed that 42 per cent. of people think that the heterosexual age of consent should be raised. We delude ourselves because we are hooked on the wrong phrase. It is not an "age of consent", but an age of protection. 'It is an age during which we protect young people. After that, we say that it is up to them to protect themselves, that education must be their protection, and the law should not intervene.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is talking about protection of young people. Will he address for a moment what I call the speed limit syndrome? By that, I mean that when a speed limit is 30 mph, it is most unlikely that there will be prosecutions of anyone going up to 40 mph—perhaps there would be beyond that. Therefore, if the age of consent for homosexual acts should be 16, is not it possible that there would be no prosecutions above the age of 14? Therefore, we have by default allowed the age of consent to go down to 14, which is not what we want in the House.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that point entirely. I can address it personally as someone who trained as a barrister and prosecuted for the Metropolitan police and the Thames Valley police, and also defended people. There was always a practical realisation that, under the present law, it was a completely arbitrary system. Some people were picked up and prosecuted, others were not. We would have to ensure that the law is enforced, so far as it could be, in a uniform way. I accept entirely that if the Committee votes tonight for 16, that is what we will require to be the age below which those who exploit young people should, without equivocation, be prosecuted. I argue for what I hope is the more intelligent outcome—the growing-up period during which one prosecutes not the young person doing the experimenting but the older person doing the exploiting. That is a fundamental principle: one prosecutes the adult who knows better.
Let me make one point about the Church of which I am a member, and respond to the quotation from the Archbishop of York. This is not a debate about what the Church teaches or about the Christian ethic. It is not a debate about the one verse in which Christ could be said to have said anything on the subject. There is a difference between personal morality and public law. The Church does not have a common view.
Moreover, the view taken by eminent members of the Church—that 18 is the right age, or that it should be the common age across the sexes—is not a view which they necessarily regard as a final resting place. There is no obvious accurate conclusion. The Church seeks to give wisdom and judgment. I hope, therefore, that the House will not conclude that there is one clear Christian view. This is a difficult area of ethical teaching and everyone must decide today what the law should be, not what morality or the Church should teach.

Sir Anthony Durant: At no time when I quoted the Archbishop of York did I in any way suggest that he represented the Church. He represented his own views.

Mr. Hughes: I am making the point that there is not a common Church view—only individual views within the Church. The Church should anyway take the view that it was more important for it to concentrate on love, fidelity and monogamy than on the details of this issue.
Why do I favour 17 rather than 16 or 18? It is because some of us are nervous that 16 is too young. More important, we must take into account the fact that, in England and Wales, someone of 16 still has to go to school —he or she cannot leave until after their 16th birthday. At age 16, therefore, one is still under authority. It seems to me that the time at which to give young people the full rights of adults is the time at which they can make full choices about schooling, education, work, training and so on. That is when they reach the age of other entitlements.

Ms Diane Abbott: They can make love in the school holidays.

Mr. Hughes: Of course, and I have made it clear that there should not be any criminality attached to such activity at that age.

Mr. Tony Banks: Behind the bike sheds?

Mr. Hughes: Behind the bicycle sheds or anywhere else. There may be a consensus in the House about the relevant age being the age soonest after which youngsters are no longer compulsorily at school. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) reminded us that in Ireland the age is 17.
The choice before us is between 16 and 18, or, if both are defeated, 17. I believe that the Committee will reach a view in favour of 16 or 18 and that the 17 option is unlikely to remain available. We must, therefore, choose between 16 and 18 even if we prefer something else. I hope that, as a result of tonight's vote, we shall choose equality at 16, but return—I ask the Home Secretary to make sure that we do—to the question whether that equality should be at 16 or 17. I believe that there may be widespread support, from gay people included, for a re-examination of that issue. We can then have a debate not about criminality but about the right way to order without discrimination private activity in Britain today.

Mr. Howard: In what I hope will be a relatively brief speech, I propose to seek to set the debate in historical context and to give some personal views.
I should make it clear at the outset that the Government regard this as an issue which should be decided by a free vote. They will respect the wishes of the House. I should also make it clear, however, that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is not a sexual offences Bill and the Government have no intention of embarking on any wide-ranging programme of sexual offences reform within it.
The present law relating to homosexual conduct between adult males in private owes its origin to the report of the committee chaired by Sir John Wolfenden, which was asked to examine these matters in 1954. The committee reported in 1957. Among its central conclusions, to be found at paragraph 71 of the report, was that


a boy is incapable at the age of 16 of forming a mature judgement about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society.
Wolfenden proposed that the relevant age should be 21, and the Sexual Offences act 1967 translated that proposal into law.
When the Home Office Policy Advisory Committee referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) revisited Wolfenden's arguments a quarter of a century later, it did not depart significantly from its predecessor's analysis of the key issues. In answer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I do not think that that analysis is necessarily devalued by the fact that the report was published in 1981. That committee received a similar variety of expert evidence on the psychological and sexual maturity of young men between the ages of 16 and 21. It was also able to reflect on the experience gained by the police and prosecuting authorities of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
The committee could not reach a unanimous view. But the majority of its members concluded, like Wolfenden, that the key question was to determine an age at which most young men could be said to be mature enough to take a decision on these matters for themselves. The committee's conclusion, which was informed by the public consultation which preceded its report, was that the age of consent should be reduced to 18. Although current medical opinion seems more rather than less certain that sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes by 16 in most cases, there will still be some young men for whom homosexual experience after that age will have profoundly influential and potentially disturbing effects.
It is also still unquestionably the case that most parents hope and expect their sons to follow a heterosexual lifestyle and hope that in due course they will build a family life of their own. The committee put it in the following way at paragraph 38:
The majority of parents would surely wish their children to grow up with the desire and possibility of marriage and children, and anything which puts this expectation at risk would be deplored.
I believe that those arguments still hold good. It is still true that in following a homosexual way of life a young man sets himself apart from the majority. From a certain age, he should be free to take that decision and no persecution or discrimination should flow from his decision, but he should not be misled into thinking that his decision will have no effect on his dealings with society at large. At the very least, he deserves time in which to make up his mind.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend confident that a young man as confused as the one whom he is portraying will be greatly assisted by having what he is experimenting with deemed to be criminal? Does he not accept that the way in which society at present handles the whole question of homosexuality creates so many barriers and pressures that the young man would well understand that he was entering into a minefield, without the sanctions or otherwise of criminal law?

Mr. Howard: I do not agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question. This is one of those matters on which a young man needs time. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that young man is likely to be assisted by that extra time.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we must also consider the parents of that young man? The vast majority of parents are concerned about the protection of such young men. That is why the law was set as it was, and the consideration is still relevant today.

Mr. Howard: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the views of parents need to be taken into account. He put that question as a parent and I speak as a parent, as did the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who made an especial point about that in his speech.

Dr. John Reid: I understand, although I no longer agree with, the Secretary of State's assumptions about maturity at age 18 as compared with 16, which would apply to almost any decision that a young person makes. The Home Secretary's whole argument seems to be based on two assumptions. Will he confirm that those assumptions are, first, that between the ages of 16 and 18, young men are converted to homosexuality rather than discovering that they are homosexual and, secondly, that that conversion can be stopped by the threat of criminal action? Will he confirm that, because it underlies everything that he has said, as he will realise when he re-reads his speech.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that the argument that I put to the Committee rests on that assumption at all. I have said that there are likely to be, not all, but a number of young men between the ages of 16 and 18 who do not have a settled sexual orientation and who may benefit from the extra time which may be available if a new clause other than the one which the hon. Gentleman supports is passed by the Committee. That is the essential point that I am making and it is rather different from the assertion that lay behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: If we want young men to grow up happy, secure and stable, and if the picture the Home Secretary paints is something that some young men go through between 16 and 18, how does it help them by making it a criminal act?

Mr. Howard: One of the functions of the criminal law in that area, which I suspect everyone in the House accepts, because everyone is arguing that there should be a minimum age, is to protect the young and the vulnerable. That point was made earlier from the Opposition benches. It was a phrase used by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). That is an important factor and one to which the House must give full weight in considering the matter.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend made the point that a person's sexual activities were an aspect of their dealings with society at large. Does he accept that the age of consent is a civil rights issue? Does he agree that unless it can be demonstrated that to bring the age of consent for male homosexuals into line with the age of consent for heterosexuals and for female homosexuals would do some distinctive damage to society, we ought to do it? Does he agree that no evidence has been produced which justifies discrimination against male homosexuals?

Mr. Howard: That is precisely what is under discussion and precisely the point that I have been addressing in the remarks that I have made and in the interventions that I have answered. The point that I have put merits careful consideration and in my judgment, as I shall make clear in a moment, is a compelling argument for not reducing the age of consent to 16.
There are two further arguments—

Ms Angela Eagle: I have been listening to what the Home Secretary has said about the maturity of 16-year-old boys and I do not understand why he is making a distinction between those who are homosexual and those who are heterosexual. Is he not arguing that there should be a difference in the ages of consent for men and for women and that the age of consent for all boys should be 18 rather than 16? I do not understand the distinction that he is drawing between the two orientations.

Mr. Howard: I shall try to explain. It is based, as I have sought to explain, on the factor recognised by the Wolfenden committee and by the Policy Advisory Committee which later considered the matter on behalf of the Home Office. The point that led them to the view that it was appropriate to have a different age of consent for men than for women was not simply that one may mature later than the other, but because of the consequences of homosexual activities. That is the point at issue and the point which Opposition Members seem to find difficult to understand.

Ms Abbott: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall put it again in the words of the Wolfenden committee. [Interruption.] It is an important point which merits consideration whatever view one takes of it. The committee said:
a boy is incapable at the age of 16 of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society.
The consequences of such a decision go to the heart of the issue and it is that consequence which led the Wolfenden committee and the Policy Advisory Committee to reach the conclusions in their reports.

Miss Joan Lestor: If the age of consent becomes 18 and, in the Home Secretary's words, young men may be unsure of where they stand between the ages of 16 and 18, how on earth will they find out what they are unless they experiment? But if they experiment, he will send them to prison. Prison is hardly the place to get people out of homosexuality. [Interruption.]

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House must settle down. I must draw to the attention of people in the Gallery that there must be no clapping or demonstrations whatever.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has totally misunderstood the point made by the Wolfenden Committee and by the Policy Advisory Committee. It is a serious point and one which merits being taken seriously by the Committee.

Mrs. Currie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: No, not at the moment. There are two further arguments. I want to deal in particular with the two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South.
Two further arguments have been put with especial frequency in the discussions leading up to the debate and I want to deal with them. They both concern equality, although to my mind the analysis offered by Wofenden and by the Policy Advisory Committee, which I have just discussed, offers a more robust basis for what the criminal law can and should do in the area than an over-simple reliance on parity, either as between the sexes or as between countries.
Equality of treatment under the law between homosexuals and heterosexuals does not in my view represent an end in itself. Whatever the scientific evidence about the age at which sexual orientation is fixed, it would be wrong to ignore the instinctive and deeply-held concern of many people that a decision to have homosexual sex is quite different from a decision to have heterosexual sex. Both Wolfenden and the Policy Advisory Committee recognised the general desirability of avoiding unnecessary discrepancies in the law's treatment of men and women, but both eventually supported recommendations that acknowledged that such discrepancies were still justified. In my view, therefore, we shall not offend against any fundamental political or civil right if we continue to reflect in the criminal law a public understanding of the difference between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the Home Secretary is being quite honest about that, why does he not address the point about female sexual orientation in respect of which there is no age limit? The Home Secretary's argument is destroyed when no protection is offered so far as women are concerned.

Mr. Howard: It does not destroy my argument. I said at the outset that the Bill is not a vehicle for the wholesale reform of our law relating to sexual offences. We are dealing with a particular set of new clauses which relate to one question before the Committee and that is the question that I am addressing.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that he is in danger of making a circular argument? If he is saying that young men who might be gay should wait because they face so many difficulties, and he then says that he intends to maintain and vote for those difficulties, he has a problem.
With regard to equality, if people in this country and Members of this House in years gone by had not voted for equal rights, neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I would be Members.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend distorts—unwittingly, I am sure—my argument. I did not say that it was important to have a separate age of consent so that people should have time to consider the difficulties which they might face. That was the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. It is not a question of legal impediments or other difficulties of that kind. It is a question of confirming themselves in a way of life which, in the words of the Wolfenden committee, will set them apart from the rest of society. That serious point was not addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South in her question to me.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must conclude.

Mr. Banks: I have two quick points. First, the Wolfenden report was written 30 or 40 years ago and things change. Secondly, and more importantly, the Wolfenden report says that those young people would be set apart from society. Does that not say something about the discrimination that society holds against young gay men? It is a problem of society, not of those young men.

Mr. Howard: No, I do not believe that it does. Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to a point made by the Policy Advisory Committee, which found an echo in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Islwyn. The Policy Advisory Committee concluded that the majority of parents would surely wish their children to grow up with the desire and possibility of marriage and children. It is a fact that the way of life that we are currently discussing involves an abandonment of those possibilities which sets those people who choose it apart and which requires the criminal law to give all the protection that it can to the young and vulnerable before they are confirmed in that orientation and before they take that decision.
As I said earlier, once that decision has been taken, once society has fixed the relevant minimum age, those people should be free to pursue their lives in private without discrimination of any kind. However, it is a legitimate and important function of the criminal law to protect the young and the vulnerable before that orientation is fixed and determined.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I said that I would not give way any more and I now intend to conclude.
There is a second element of equality on which some reliance has been made. It has been suggested that we in this country should change our age of consent because it has been changed in other countries. That is a rather extraordinary argument, particularly as there is no consensus in other countries about what that age should be. If we are unusual in Europe in respect of our age of consent for homosexuals and we are satisfied that there is good reason for us to do so, we are entitled to maintain that position. That is an issue which we can and should decide for ourselves.
I have sought to describe the main features of the expert consideration of this issue by the Wolfenden committee and the Policy Advisory Committee. Having said that, the essence of this debate is that it concerns a subject which defies decision by expert committee. Each of us must vote according to conscience and the merits of the arguments as we see them.
For my part, I believe that reducing the age of consent from 21 to 18 strikes the right balance. On the one hand, we should not criminalise private actions freely entered into by consenting mature adults. On the other hand, we need to protect vulnerable young men from activities that their lack of maturity might cause them to regret. I believe that those arguments are the key considerations in this debate. They do not rely on abstract considerations of equality, but address directly the fears and aspirations of our constituents. I shall accordingly vote against new clauses 3 and 6, but in favour of new clause 5.

Mr. Blair: I shall support new clause 3 moved by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I congratulate her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on the way in which they have spoken to the clause.
Let us be clear about the issue before us tonight. It is not at what age we wish young people to have sex. It is whether the criminal law should discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual sex. It is therefore an issue not of age, but of equality. By supporting equality, no one is advocating or urging gay sex at 16 any more than those who would maintain the age of consent for heterosexual sex advocate that girls or boys of 16 should have sex. It is simply a question whether there are grounds for discrimination.
At present, the law discriminates. There is no doubt about the personal misery that such discrimination brings: to young people frightened to admit their own sexuality and of the fear of imprisonment, and to any man who is homosexual and who knows that the criminal law treats that in a different and more incriminating way.
The argument—and the only argument—advanced to justify that discrimination and its attendant tragedy is that it is necessary for the protection of young people. Without it, it is said, young men unsure of their sexuality may be preyed upon by older homosexuals and induced to become homosexual when they otherwise would not. I will attempt to deal with that argument tonight.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I hope that the Committee will not be misled by the fact that heterosexual activity is normal and homosexual activity, putting your penis into another man's arsehole, is a perverse—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We can well do without talk like that.

Mr. Blair: I do not think that I will answer that intervention.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. For those of us who wish to speak in the debate, may I ask whether it would be in order to describe what it is that we are debating—the actual act? [HON. MEMBERS: "We all know."] We may all know, but would it be in order? Would it be in order to describe an unnatural act so that we can be absolutely certain that there is no doubt outside this Chamber about what we are debating?

The First Deputy Chairman: It is a matter of the words and language that are used. Long interventions do not help.

Mr. Blair: I was trying to deal with the argument put forward by the Home Secretary earlier. I have great difficulty with the very premise of that argument. I do not believe that sexuality is determined by persuasion. The overwhelming evidence—scientific or indeed merely experience of life—suggests that being homosexual is not something that people catch, are taught or persuaded into, but something that they are.
It is not against the nature of gay people to be gay; it is in fact their nature. It is what they are; it is different, but that is not a ground for discrimination. The vast bulk of evidence suggests that, at 16, boys and girls, particularly


nowadays, are aware of their sexuality and that, what is more, that sexuality is normally developed with those of their own age, not with predatory elders.
However, let us assume for the purposes of argument that there is a small minority that fits into the category that has been described. How would use of the criminal law assist such a situation? How would that deal with vulnerable young people of whatever sex? For those who are confused about their sexuality, how does the criminal law help to resolve that confusion? Indeed, it merely complicates it. It deters many from seeking the information, advice and help that they need.
If we are in any doubt about that, let us listen to organisations that deal day in and day out with the problems of young people, such as Save the Children Fund, and the National Children's Bureau. They say that the real danger is not young, sexually uncertain men being preyed upon by older men, but young boys and men who are gay but, are afraid to seek the advice and help that they may desperately need. That is the evidence that was given by the British Medical Association, which backs up that view on the ground of better health education.
We talk about predatory older men. That happens—if it does happen—not just with young men but with young girls, yet no one would advance that as a reason for raising the age of consent. Moreover, where such predatory conduct takes place—let us assume for the purposes of the argument that it does—it takes place in circumstances that we all know: in parts of our inner cities and around some railway stations late at night, where young boys and girls sell sex for money and shelter. Surely the question that we should ask is why those young people are in those circumstances when it is not the criminal law but a roof over their heads, a decent family and home and a chance of a job that will help them.
The point that has been made about other countries is not that we should follow what happens in other countries, or the fact that the majority of other countries in Europe do not discriminate should mean that we necessarily blindly follow their path; it is, first, that many of those countries are among the most conservative, usually, in such matters, which makes their decision on equality all the more telling, and, secondly, and most important, that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the adverse consequences forecast as attending a move to equality here have happened in those countries—none, not a single shred of evidence, not anywhere.
On practical grounds, and even accepting that there is a small percentage of cases in which there is a fear of predatory conduct, can it be said that the fear that, without the sanction of criminal law, there might be an unquantifiable number of young men who will engage in homosexual relations who otherwise would not is a reason for perpetrating discrimination against all homosexual men when we know that the vast majority of young people are not in that situation, when, if anything, the protection that they need is the removal of the stigma attached to their sexuality, when independent organisations that deal with young people want it removed, and when equality is the norm in neighbouring countries without any of the adverse consequences claimed for it?
That is why the real objection is not reason but prejudice. It was shown by the point of order that was made

earlier. In the end, all the concern, however ostensibly objective—let us assume that some of it is genuinely motivated—is traceable to that very subjective prejudice. Let us be clear that people are entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not entitled to use the criminal law to force that view upon others. That is where the real practitioners of political correctness lie—not in those who merely seek equality of treatment but in those who insist that the law must discriminate in favour of their view of the conduct of others. That is why, also, the so-called compromise of 18 is misguided. What is the rationale behind maintaining the stigma but at a different age? It is an issue not of age but of equality.
I inform hon. Members who may have genuine doubts about which way to vote that, because it is an issue of equality, and because it concerns the equal rights of our citizens, this is an issue not just for those who are gay but for all of us who are concerned about the type of society in which we live. Recent newspaper discussion has suggested —I understand it—that moves to equalise the ages of consent might fall foul of the recent controversy that is well known to us. That is precisely what should not happen. It is precisely at this moment that we should have the courage to change.
Yes, there is a powerful mood in this country that the social fabric has been torn, that standards of behaviour have fallen, and that our system of values has become confused and disoriented. Yes, it is the case that any strong society needs good and decent principles to sustain and motivate it. But it should be a society that makes sense of the passage of time, that learns from and evaluates its progress, that has confidence to build its own future, not takes refuge in the prejudices of the past because it is afraid to change them. A society of genuine standards and principles allows individuals the freedom to develop to the full. A society of prejudice and discrimination can merely make them conform.
That is the choice. We should seek the best of the old and the best of the new. Some change is good; some change is bad. We should distinguish between the two. I deplore, as we all do, for example, the greater lawlessness in society, the increased violence, and the abusive behaviour of today. I should like to return to a better time when those issues were less. But I have no desire to return to a time when women were inhibited from going to work, when sex could not be openly discussed and debated, when young people were not taught at school how life is given and created, and when gay men hid their sexuality in fear.
Some change is indeed progress. Let us recognise it when it happens. After all, 100 years ago there was no universal suffrage for men, and no votes for women. Fifty years ago there were no laws against racial intolerance. Each change was fought for, but resisted by prejudice wrapped in a coat of reason.
It is not that, over time, our basic values should change —of course not—but it is through experience and thought that our understanding of what those values should encompass has been enlarged. Indeed, I go further: the most basic civilised value is the notion of respect for other people. That is what creates and sustains any decent society. That is why crime is wrong; that is why violent and abusive behaviour is wrong; that is why racial abuse is wrong. It is also why it is wrong to treat a man as inferior because his sexuality is different.
A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of


sexuality. That is the moral case for change tonight. It is our chance to welcome people—I do not care whether there are 50,000, 500,000 or or 5 million; it matters not a damn —into full membership of our society, on equal terms. It is our chance to do good, and we should take it.

Mr. Michael Alison: Far and away the weakest aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was the fact that, in 10 or 15 minutes, he managed to beg the essential question that we are debating. He isolated two categories: the older, convinced and committed homosexual—whatever the nature of his condition, genetically or otherwise—and the youngster of 16, 18 or 21 who is, likewise, a committed, finally developed and fully oriented homosexual.
We are not concerned, however, with those whose sexual orientation is crystallised and fully formed; we are concerned precisely with the "in between" group, between the ages of 16 and 18, for whom the Home Secretary pleaded. He pleaded for a little more time for them, precisely because they have not reached the stage of crystallisation in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield wanted to protect them—and defend them from penalisation.
9 pm
Even if we take that very small, determinate group—which is not really the proper focus of tonight's debate —in isolation, as the hon. Gentleman did, I very much doubt whether he can demonstrate satisfactorily that the law as it stands, which makes involvement in a homosexual act consensually in the age range of 16 to 21 an offence, impinges seriously and oppressively on that group. A written answer on 17 January made it clear in 1990, 1991 and 1992 there were respectively nine, 10 and 12 prosecutions for homosexual offences between those aged 21 and over and those under 21.
It simply is not credible that young men in the relevant age group—here I refer particularly to the great mass who may be uncertain about their sexual orientation and are not crystallised and fully formed in the category that the hon. Gentleman sought to defend—cannot, because of the law as it stands, consult their parents, if they so wish; or nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers. It is incredible that the law should be held to inhibit them from doing so and that they should believe that those individuals may report them to the police and invoke prosecutions. The number of prosecutions can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The evidence is even stronger. On 11 February, the Home Secretary was asked on how many occasions over the past decade any male under the age of 21 years had been prosecuted, or prosecuted and convicted, for the offence of buggery. The answer was practically none.

Mr. Alison: My hon. and learned Friend supports the argument that I am trying to sustain. The hon. Member for Sedgefield and others who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), have entirely failed to convince us that the law is an oppressive, tyrannical, vicious instrument, rather than—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) suggested, following the Archbishop of York—a helpful, short-term, protective guideline which helps exactly the people with whom the hon. Member for

Sedgefield did not deal. I refer to the mas of undetermined, seeking, evolving, immature youngsters between 16 and 18 who have not made up their minds. They are not deterred by the law from seeking advice about their health and development.

Mrs. Currie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy at lunchtime, when we discussed the matter outside the House.
If it is true—I do not believe it is—that the law is so ineffective, why should we bother to have a law? If the law does not cause all the difficulties, why not just sweep it away? If we are trying to protect young people, why should we turn them into criminals?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend does not fundamentally appreciate the sublety and nature of the law. The law stands on the statute book, but the Crown Prosecution Service has the difficult but critically important task of deciding in what circumstances it is going to prosecute and apply the law.
In that area, one gets the best of both worlds from the point of view of the youngster who is seeking guidance and direction at an early stage in his sexual development and maturity. The framework of law is there, but it is at the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service whether to invoke it. The evidence is that it rarely invokes it.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: I must get on, as my time is constrained.
The law is rarely invoked in such a way as to make it difficult for a youngster who has problems of sexual health between the ages 16 and 18 to consult people who can give helpful advice.
I come back to the group that the hon. Member for Sedgefield entirely ignored. That is those who are evolving in their sexual orientation and have not finally made up their minds exactly what they are or how they are. Those people need the protection of the law and, at the same time, the discretion and the advice of a lot of sensible people. What would be done for that vulnerable group by removing the constraint of law which at present applies to them? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South must demonstrate some positive advantage to outweigh the significantly hazardous disadvantages which may accrue.
I draw the Committee's attention to three significant disadvantages. The first may be the removal of a desirable pointer or guideline of the sort which the Home Secretary properly stated is one of the functions of law. It is there as a guideline which may rarely be thrown into action by the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is there. Why remove it, if there is some suggestion that it might help in guiding people?
The second is that there is no doubt that there is a hazard that youngsters might be exposed to the appalling hazard of AIDS. We should at least focus on that possibility.
I leave the Committee with a couple of significant statistics. The average age for first anal intercourse among homosexuals—I use a more discreet euphemism than was used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)—is 20·9 years. That form of intercourse is profoundly relevant to the possibility of acquiring AIDS. That mean age is so close to the prescribed age in law of 21 as to suggest that it is not without its relationship to the existing age boundaries. If the boundary is moved down to 16, there is a risk that the


average age for that AIDS-inducing form of sexual intercourse may move down into the more vulnerable age group.
The second factor that is relevant to health is that, according to the Public Health Laboratory included Service, over 75 per cent. of all AIDS cases come from male homosexuals. The AIDS dimension cannot be overlooked if we are removing a protective barrier for vulnerable youngsters.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: My right hon. Friend raises a good point, but he should be aware that there are 3,000 young men between the ages of 16 and 21 who are HIV positive—the figures come from Government-sponsored reports—and that there are 300 young men between those ages who have fully blown AIDS. Most of those are going to die because they are so afraid of being prosecuted.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has failed to listen to the evidence that I have given of the criminal statistics, aided and abetted by his intervention. There simply are not enough criminal prosecutions every year to suggest that most youngsters are even aware of the existence of the law on homosexuality. The Crown Prosecution Service hardly ever brings prosecutions and it cannot be said that youngsters are inhibited from seeking health advice.
I have in my hand a pamphlet published by the Health Education Authority entitled "The Best Sex Guide". It lists a range of sexual options apart from penetrative sex, which is the most hazardous in terms of AIDS. The guide includes sexual options which technically come within the definition of gross indecency and, therefore, are potentially criminal. The guide does not even bother to say, "If you indulge in this you may be breaking the law." The pamphlet is distributed among teenagers. The authority simply does not believe that the law has any inhibiting effect. So it is pointless to say that the law is an inhibiting factor.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: No, I must get on. It is not fair on other right hon. and hon. Members.
As for the argument that youngsters do not seek advice because they might land in the hands of the police, the pamphlet from the Health Education Authority lists at least four centres committed to confidentiality which people can contact if they want health advice. No reference to the police is likely to result. It is spurious to suggest that youngsters in the relevant age groups cannot seek health advice because they fear prosecution by the police.
My last point is to refer to an important quotation by the right hon. Member for—the most difficult part of my speech is going to be pronouncing his constituency—

Mr. Kinnock: Islwyn. It is easy.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have always had the greatest admiration, enhanced this evening by the fact that he picked out one paragraph of the guidance from the British Medical Association. I want to quote that paragraph again so that it goes on the record twice. It can be seen to have a different perspective and significance according to which way one looks at it. The guidance said:

Official homosexual community organisations and clubs operate a clear over-21 policy to comply with the present law. This means that younger men are denied access to advice which such organisations can provide and are less exposed to the social climate within the organised homosexual community which strongly supports 'safer sex'".
If we remove the 21 limit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) proposes, and reduce it to 16, the incentive for what are described as
official homosexual community organisations and clubs
to retain an over-21 membership policy will be entirely removed. They will drop their membership age limit to 16. They will draw into that particular vortex exactly those whose sexual orientation is not properly determined and is open to alteration and redirection in the context of a highly organised, self-conscious community. If it does introduce young men to safer sex of a homosexual kind, it will have the effect of predetermining them perhaps to lose precisely that option of family life and normal parenthood which is what they should have held open for them.
Therefore, I hope that the Committee will ignore the limited and exclusive advice in human rights terms advanced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, which relates purely to those who are already predetermined and committed to a particular orientation, whatever their age. I hope that the Committee will focus on the needs of those who are bobbing about in an uncertain sea of sexual development between the ages of 16 and 18 and who need every support and protection that they can get, precisely as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary advised us to do.

Mr. Mike Watson: I should like to begin by asking your permission, Mr. Lofthouse, to depart from a tradition in this Chamber by sipping occasionally from the glass behind me, which contains nothing more exotic, and nothing more pure, than London tap water. I make that request lest, at some future date, the House of Commons considers the introduction of an upper age limit for consenting males roaring themselves hoarse at football matches on Saturday afternoons. I damaged my vocal chords while attempting, albeit futilely, to exhort Dundee United to a place in the quarter finals of the Scottish cup. I am afraid that, two days later, I am still paying the price.
9.15 pm
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), not just for her speech this afternoon but for the sterling work that she has done over a considerable time on this and other issues relating to gay and lesbian equality. when we are dealing with the question of the introduction of an equal age of consent, the fundamental issue is, first and foremost, one of equality, but it is also one of human rights or, as has already been said, of civil rights. We must bear in mind that the European Court of Human Rights is considering a case arising from the British Government's being in contravention of articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said, it is appropriate that we should decide tonight to bring the law into line with the convention rather than wait to be forced to do so in two or three years' time.
The question whether there should be an equal age of consent is not just one of equality, although that is important. It is quite wrong and quite unsustainable that we


should criminalise and stigmatise young gay men for doing what their heterosexual friends do quite legally. For almost all purposes, the age of majority is now 16.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: Not at this stage.
In Scotland, 16-year-olds have even more rights. A 16-year-old may choose to set up a business or marry or join the armed forces, but if he is gay he cannot legally have a sexual relationship of his choosing. In 1994, that is nonsense.
An equal age of consent would protect young gay men in a variety of ways. First, as has been said, it would improve opportunities for safer-sex education, thereby leading to a reduction in the spread of HIV. The comments of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) were treated with some mirth by several of his hon. Friends. That reaction shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the issue that we are debating and the spread of HIV and AIDS—something about which nobody thought in 1967. This is the first opportunity to look at the legislation since the AIDs pandemic became widely known.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: Not at this stage.
An equal age of consent would also enable young gay men more freely to seek advice and support from people and agencies—perhaps, in the first instance, teachers. In the past two or three weeks, other hon. Members and I have received from many agencies letters outlining their experiences. They are very concerned. The citizens advice bureaux, for example, have produced evidence suggesting that younger gay male clients face significant difficulties in gaining independence—particularly in securing access to accommodation. Those difficulties are exacerbated by the age of consent itself, which can act as a barrier to young gay men who want to pursue their perfectly legitimate rights.
After all, a gay man under 21 is at present behaving illegally if he has an active sexual relationship. It is entirely understandable that men in that position feel inhibited from seeking the advice of organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux. The discrimination that they face manifests itself in a number of ways. The citizens advice bureaux have reported disturbing instances of discrimination against lesbians and gay men in several areas, particularly in respect of social security matters. They cite as an example a bureau in Humberside, which reported that a client had been forced to leave work because of continuous harassment about his sexuality. His unemployment benefit was suspended, and he asked the bureau to help him with his appeal. The adjudication officer submitted:
Some people are bound to be the subject of humour because they are different—for example, overweight, bald or of Irish extraction.
That quotation highlights the prejudice and discrimination that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) outlined at the conclusion of his excellent speech. We are dealing with prejudice and discrimination, and new clause 3 gives us the chance to end it.
The citizens advice bureaux have also reported that gay clients can be very isolated and can gain from using the services of their local offices, but many—particularly, for

obvious reasons, those between the ages of 16 and 21—are not doing so. If we accept the new clause, we shall remove a significant barrier for young men who want to be able to pursue their rights.
An equal age of consent would achieve other objectives. It would protect people who are vulnerable by facilitating increased openness and support in their families; dealing with the matter in the family is often one of the most difficult aspects. It would also reduce the enormous stress and misery involved and, as hon. Members have mentioned, the suicide risk, which the current law and the isolation that it causes can create. It would also remove the stigma of second-class citizenship, which a differential age of consent encourages and allows to fester. That is not an important argument. Equalising the age of consent at 16 would legalise fully consenting, private sexual behaviour for gay men between 16 and 21 years of age. As I have said, such behaviour is legal for heterosexuals, and those gay men who have practised it have faced prosecution only rarely in recent years, and rightly so.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman has twice misled the Committee. He claimed that it is legal for heterosexuals to indulge in the act of buggery, but it is not and never has been legal. It should not be made legal for teenage boys.

Mr. Watson: That was not what I said. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I was talking about adult sexual activity.
People between the ages of 16 and 21 enjoy rights and are protected by other legislation from sexual assault and exploitation. The law that is under discussion, the Sexual Offences Act 1967, is riddled with inconsistencies. If there is a fear that so-called predatory men will prey on young boys, what lessons can we learn from the effect of legislation in other countries? There is no evidence that in the countries that hon. Members have listed in the debate where the age of consent is lower than in this country—in all cases, it is lower—vast hoards of men prey on younger men or, indeed, boys.
We should also ask why the same argument does not apply to young women. Hon. Members should consider the inconsistencies. If a female schoolteacher seduced a 17-year-old girl, the teacher could, depending on the circumstances, lose her job, but she would not face any criminal prosecution. If a male teacher seduced a 17-year-old boy pupil, he would lose his job and, most likely, his freedom for a period of up to two years. If he seduced a 17-year-old girl, however, the law would have nothing to say about that.
It is also argued that boys take longer to mature than girls. If Conservative Members did not advance that argument in all seriousness, I would find it an amusing argument and I might not be so concerned about it. If 16 year-old boys are, as a rule, confused about their sexuality, why are they allowed legally to marry at 16? Should the law not say that it is understood that the young man and the young lady want to be married, but that it regards them as being confused—

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: No, I shall not. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a speech and I am sure that he will have time to do so later.
There is an ambiguity. If hon. Members argue that 16-year-old males are confused, they should also argue that


males should not be allowed to marry at that age. It is nonsense. The argument has very little validity because experience shows otherwise.
The Committee should respect the view of experts on such an important aspect of the legislation. We have already heard that the BMA believes that the criminality of the sexual activity of young men between the ages of 16 to 21 is harmful. There is also other eminent evidence: the Royal College of Psychiatrists has considered the matter in detail, and we should give weight to its opinion. It has concluded unequivocally:
there are no psychiatric or developmental reasons why the minimum age for homosexual practices should be other than 16 years.
It has also stated that sexual orientation is not capable of major realignment after the early teens. We should bear in mind that that is very much in line with the experiences of homosexual men, with whom many hon. Members have had communications in recent months. We should consider the experiences that they pass on to us and learn from them.
An age of consent of 21, 18 or 17 criminalises young men, whom the law claims to protect. Ultimately, the law does not act as a deterrent and does not stop younger men from having sex with other men if their sexuality tells them that they should do so or if they want to do so. A majority of young men know that, and that is the experience which they have communicated to us. We owe them a duty to recognise that fact.
Criminal law should have no place in a matter of private morality and that is what we are debating. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 put British legislation ahead of that in most other European countries. Today, we are lagging behind all those countries and we are in the shameful position of having the highest age of consent in Europe. Hon. Members who oppose what I have been arguing for will say that all those countries are out of step with us, but that is ridiculous.
We must acknowledge the arguments that have been communicated to us. We have the opportunity to introduce legislation that will bring this country into line with our European neighbours. Our citizens have a right to protection from the prejudice and discrimination that I described. When hon. Members uncover discrimination and prejudice, they have a duty to end it at the first possible opportunity. New clause 3 provides that opportunity this evening and the Committee should not shirk from taking it.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I support new clause 3, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and others who have enabled the Committee to have this important debate.
I listened with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who tabled a new clause in favour of the age of 18.
It is generally expected that when hon. Members pronounce to the House of Commons on a subject, they will lay claim to some expertise or familiarity with the subject on which they are about to opine. It is our loss that no hon. Member will do so tonight and I am no exception. I hope that hon. Friends will agree that when one lacks personal expertise in a matter the sensible thing to do is to seek advice from those who have such knowledge.
Is the British Medical Association opposed to the new clause? As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) told us, it is not. It argues in favour of lowering the age of consent to 16, on the ground that criminality places young people at greater risk of HIV transmission. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby but, with respect, as a layman I am entitled to lay at least equal weight on the opinion of the British Medical Association.
Is the Royal College of Psychiatrists opposed to the new clause? No. Again, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn reminded us, it argues that there are no psychiatric or developmental reasons for the minimum age to be other than 16.
Both Barnardo's and the Terence Higgins Trust believe that the stigma of criminality places young people at risk and diminishes the effectiveness of HIV prevention initiatives in the United Kingdom. Even the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, in a characteristically prudent and understanding declaration, stated that Roman Catholics may reasonably argue for the age of consent to be 16, 18, 21—or even higher.
I have been unable to find any organisation of probity to which hon. Members might look for advice in such matters which argues aginst the age of 16. Indeed, even my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who is not in his place and who often seeks to advise Conservative Members, has not pronouned on the matter or given it so much as two minutes of his valuable time.
Those Conservative Members who have lived through the experiences of the past 10 years will need no reminding that expert opinion, however convincing or overwhelming, is no substitute for the judgment that individual Members must make. I repeat that I shall certainly respect the point of view of those who do not support new clause 3. In the past decade, we Conservative Members have flown in the face of expert opinion too often, and with success, to cast aside our own judgments that lightly. I hope that my hon. Friends will at least give some weight to the expert opinion that I have just cited.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what weight to put on the sincere prejudices that exist throughout the nation? They may not be well informed, but we should at least bear them in mind, for the practical reason that if we go too far ahead of public opinion that policy will fall on its face.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend put that question to the right hon. Member for Islwyn and I agree with the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave. The House of Commons must, of course, be very careful not to run ahead of public opinion in any matter, and, in particular, in matters of personal conduct of this kind. In my judgment —other colleagues will make their own judgment—I suspect that we have reached the point where it would be right for the House to send a message to the rest of our fellow citizens on this matter. I hope to elaborate on that later.
I hope that my hon. Friends, who do not have any particular expertise, will give at least give some weight to the scientific and expert opinion that I have cited. I should like to give a few practical reasons why I believe that the Committee should turn away from the apparent attraction


of the soft option of the age of 18, as proposed in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and directly lower the age of consent to 16.
First, the age of 18 is not a happy compromise. Compromises work only when all parties agree with them. In this case, the homosexual community will be gravely disappointed if the Committee decides to vote for the age of 18. It will bring this matter back to the House of Commons again and again. The vote for 18 will not make the issue go away, but a vote for the age of 16 will.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: In common with many of my hon. Friends, I am not sure how to vote tonight. We have all agonised greatly on this issue. My right hon. Friend has touched on an issue that is of concern to many of the public and to many in the Chamber. If we opted for the age of 18 instead of 21, there would still be a barrier between the ages of 16 and 18. If we opted for the age of 16, would we find that soon more and more pressure was exterted to bring the age of consent down to 15, 14 or perhaps even lower?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point because it is important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby seemed to imply that the law was some kind of guideline. I do not wish to see the House of Commons passing laws that are guidelines. It should pass laws that are rigorously enforced. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has raised an important point, because if we vote for the age of 18, the danger will be that the law will continue to be applied as it is now, haphazardly, based on the judgment of individual police officers, and so forth. I have no doubt that, if the Committee takes the wise and prudent decision to vote for the age of consent to be lowered to 16, it will be agreed —I see hon. Members around me nodding—that the law should be rigorously enforced and all the weight of our enforcement agencies should be placed behind it.
Secondly—this is not a killer point in any way—most countries of a similar cultural background, such as New Zealand, Sweden, France, Belgium and Holland, have opted for equality of treatment between the sexes in this matter and have chosen ages considerably lower than those that we are considering. Do hon. Members believe that the whole moral fabric of those nations has been undermined?
I should like to make an international point which it may be easy for hon. Members to dismiss. A case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I hasten to reassure my hon. Friends that the Council of Europe is not a European Community institution but an institution of which Britain is a founder and much-respected member. I cannot anticipate the court's judgment but I fear that, in a year or two, we risk being found in contravention of articles 14 and 18 of the convention.
It will not have escaped the Committee's notice that the whole of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was, as far as I could discern, predicated on the Wolfenden report, published 27 years ago, and on the comments on that report by the Home Office Policy Advisory Committee published 13 years ago. With the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, the passage of time should be taken into account, particularly as the scourge of AIDS has arisen since both those reports were published.
What ccncerned me most was the fact that, throughout my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks, he made no mention of his intention rigorously to enforce the law if the Committee votes for the age of consent to be lowered to 18, as he intends to vote. He did not mention the guidance that he would give police officers about enforcing that law. My hon. Friends will be concerned that he did not say how much of the public resources he intended to devote to enforcing the law.
I fear that, if we vote for 18, we shall end up with the worst of both possible worlds—a newly enacted law that is not properly and rigorously upheld but is perhaps used, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, as a guideline. My hon. Friends and I are not in the business of voting for guidelines. We want laws that are rigorously enforced and applied. Moreover, young people will still be at risk and in fear of criminality, and this controversial issue will return to the House again and again.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend referred to the scourge of AIDS. He will agree that the best way to avert that is not to criminalise the sexuality of young males. Does he agree that all young people, whatever their sexual orientation, should be entitled to good-quality sex education? Does he agree in particular that education about HIV and AIDS should be restored to the national curriculum?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Brazier: rose——

Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to conclude. I would, of course, give way to my hon. Friend, but other hon. Members want to speak.
I shall direct a few remarks specifically at my side of the Committee. I have addressed right hon. and hon. Members only once since I left Government. On that occasion, I was perhaps unwise enough to make a passing reference to "back to basics". I said then, and repeat now, that I am as willing as any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to take a nice warm bath in my own prejudices but that I did not believe that giving homilies to lone mothers even began to address the problems that we needed to address as the party of Government in the coming decade.
The Conservative party has always had the good sense not to tie itself to any dogma, or to have its political philosophy set in tablets of stone. [Interruption] There are currents in this debate, some of which go across the Committee, and some of which are on one side of it. My party has had the good sense not to set its philosophy in tablets of stone. I have no problem with "back to basics" because the basic instincts of Tory Members of Parliament and of the Conservative party have been and are right—whether in relation to education, law and order, defence or, as important, the balance that must be struck between individual liberty and collective responsibility. I have no difficulty with that.
Another Tory instinct is as basic as any of those—the instinct of decency and common sense. That instinct has prevented our party from ever allowing any group, class or section of the community to have hatred directed against it. That instinct has ensured that no Le Pens or Jimmy Swaggarts have been able to gain credence on the political


right in Britain. It is to that best instinct of the Conservative party that I appeal tonight, in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 3.

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise to support new clause 3, moved by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and seconded so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), and strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
I begin by remembering our late and much-loved colleague Jo Richardson. In the last painful illness that she faced, she deeply wished to be present to vote for new clause 3. Perhaps we shall do something tonight to pay tribute to her memory.
The kernel of tonight's debate is the argument about equality. It was well put from both sides of the Committee, and I will not dwell on it further. Suffice it to say that I believe in the fundamental principle that we are all equal before the law. At present, the law does not permit that in the case of young gay men.
This country has laws that say that one may not discriminate on the grounds of race or gender. Perhaps those laws are not always implemented as Parliament wished when it passed them, but they say that one shall not discriminate. But the law discriminates in respect of the relationships of young gay men. To my mind, that means that it should be changed.
I shall address three or four of the points that have emerged in opposition to the new clause. The Home Secretary argued that perhaps the age of 16 is too young and that a young man needs time to come to a full decision about his sexuality and relationships. I fear that his argument was based on two fundamental misconceptions. The first was that somehow young men can be enticed, encouraged or converted into being gay. That is not so. We are who we are. No amount of attempts by anyone to convert us into something else would pose a threat or danger.
The second assumption underlying the Home Secretary's argument was that the consequences of homosexual activity would set someone apart from the generality of society. I must tell him that he was in danger of lapsing into tautology, because by keeping the law in a discriminatory fashion and placing the age of consent at 18 —at 21, it would still discriminate and enshrine discrimination into the statute book—automatically means that young gay men will be set apart from society. If we remove that discrimination from the statute book, it may go some way towards giving young gay men the self-respect and the self-dignity to which they are entitled and should have.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the age of consent for girls at 16 was fixed not for sexual reasons, but for reasons of pregnancy and marriage, because that is when a girl could carry a child and get married? At the age of 16 a man could possibly support a family. If there is to be no discrimination on age grounds, why is it 18 for buying alcohol in a pub or working a night shift down the pit? Why do we not have everything at 16, as my hon. Friend would like?

Mr. Smith: We could perhaps argue about other activities that might be proper and right at the age of 16. I must say to my hon. Friend that the law on going into a pub is equal for men and women of all sexualities and all shapes and sizes. I want the law for sexual relationships to be exactly the same. I do not believe that the argument that the Home Secretary advanced holds water.
A second argument has been advanced. It was a question genuinely posed by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who spoke about what he called the sincere prejudices that are held throughout the nation. I do not believe that his reading of the public mood on this issue is necessarily as clear cut as he appears to assume. I must also say that those prejudices may be sincerely held, but none the less they are prejudices. One of our duties in a democracy is to protect the rights of minorities, even though those minorities may be unpopular. That is a democratic duty which is placed on us.

Mr. Gorst: I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that people are entitled to hold prejudices but that they are not entitled to hold prejudices that affect anyone but themselves.

Mr. Smith: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says because it clearly makes the case for the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
The third argument that has been advanced genuinely and sincerely by many people is that by changing the law we shall ensure that older men may seek somehow to exploit or abuse younger men. That is a serious argument and deserves serious consideration, but I believe that it ignores three important points. First, overwhelming the problem of abuse is the problem of the abuse by older men of younger women. That is something about which we should rightly be concerned.
Secondly, we are talking about a change in the law of consent, and consent means consent. There is no scope, and there should be no scope, for the exploitation or abuse of one individual by another. Where there is agreement and consent, however, is it right that the law should come knocking on the bedroom door and intervene in the personal relationship of two mature individuals making up their own minds about what they want to do?
Thirdly, the argument about older men ignores the perversity of the law as it stands, which is that it may actually diminish protection for young men. A young man who is abused and exploited by an older man may be frightened of going to the police to report the incident. He may be worried—his fear may be misplaced, but it is real —that he may be brought to book for what has happened. Because that fear exists, the older man who made the advance and attempted the exploitation may be allowed to go free to do the same again. I do not think that the argument that setting the age of consent at 21 or 18 protects younger men holds water.
A fourth argument has been advanced, and it has been touched on by one or two Conservative Members. It is a deeper and I suggest less worthy argument. It is that being gay is abnormal and therefore unnatural and illegitimate. To those people, I would say this. Yes, we are different. We have a different sexuality. But that does not make us in any way less valid or less worthy citizens of this country. Yet the law at present says that we are.
A century ago, A. E. Housman wrote:


Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they're taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.
In this country we do not discriminate against people on the ground of the colour of their hair. We do not discriminate against people because they happen to be left-handed. We do not discriminate against people because they are of a different race. But we do discriminate against them because their sexuality is different. I argue that we should not.
I would also argue that it is a question of a fundamental principle of democracy. As long ago as 8 June 1984, the Heads of State of the seven major industrial democracies, including the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, signed a declaration on democratic values.
The second foremost point of that declaration said:
We believe in a rule of law which respects and protects without fear or favour the rights and liberties of every citizen, and provides the setting in which the human spirit can develop in freedom and diversity.
The protection and the endorsement of that principle of diversity is what the new clause is all about. Let us back equality tonight, not because it is easy, not necessarily because it will win great applause from the tabloid press, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I know you to be a fair and balanced Chairman of the Committee, but may I point out that throughout the three-hour debate, one Member only has been called, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has made the case against either of the clauses? I am sure that you would wish there to be a balance in the argument.

The Chairman: I do not accept the hon. Lady's chastisement and I am sorry that she felt it necessary to raise the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The proposer of the new clause, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), has asked us to turn our eyes towards Europe. I understand that she has European ambitions and so she already has her eyes on Europe. The previous meeting of the European Parliament in Strasbourg passed a resolution which bore out the words of the Liberal Democratic party spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). If we go down the proposed road, there will be other matters with which we shall have to deal. I take it that that was his message.
The resolution says that certain things must be swept away. First, it says that there should be an end to different and discriminatory ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts. Of course, there is no agreed age in Europe, as we know. Ages of consent go down as far as 12. I wonder how many hon. Members would vote for reducing the age of consent to 12. Secondly, there is to be no prosecution of homosexuality as a public nuisance or a gross indecency. Thirdly, there is to be no barring of lesbians and gay couples from marriage or from an equivalent legal framework and there should be a guarantee of the full rights and benefits of marriage allowing the registration of partnerships. Finally, the most

serious change of all is that any restrictions of the rights of lesbians and gay men to be parents or to adopt and foster children should end.
There is a road that the Committee can go down tonight, which has been signposted by that resolution which was passed overwhelmingly in the Strasbourg Parliament in its previous session. I do not think that the Committee should look to Europe. The Committee should look to its own citizens, to its own well-being and to where we should want our country to go. I have listened to the speeches in which some principles were paraded as if they bore the stamp of infallibility.
It has been argued that private morality should not be a matter for the House. If we followed that principle, how many Acts of Parliament would have to be destroyed? It is very interesting that we are told tonight that there must be liberty for males to carry out an unnatural act. However, in the law of this land, that unnatural act is banned between male and female. I have not heard it argued that that law should be removed. That law is to stand. However, the law relating to males must be taken away.
10 pm
This country must realise that the unit of society, and the cement that holds it together, is the family. As goes the family, so will go the nation. If we do not have the cement of the family, society will disintegrate and be destroyed. I plead with the Committee not to despise, reject or to brand the cement of society as some kind of prejudice. The normal sex act within the marriage vow, bringing together male and female and producing offspring, is the happy way; it is the divine way; it is the creative way; and it is the best way. As one of the apostles said, it is the more excellent way.
How can the Committee argue today that we need to deal with an age limit? We have been told that this is not really a matter of age, but of equality. To the hon. Members who have argued that, I ask whether that is not so of everything that they have said. That includes the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who spoke so eloquently from the Opposition Front Bench. Everything that he said in respect of 16 could be argued for 14.
As a father, I know the difficulties that occur when raising a family. If any father were to tell the Committee tonight that his children had no sexual thoughts until they were 16, that person would be laughed out of Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sedgefield thought many thoughts before he was 16.
Let us come down to the hard facts. What has been argued tonight in Committee does not stand up. The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) told us that if we vote for 16 tonight, the problem will go away and we will never have to discuss it again. That is wishful thinking. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the European thing has gone away, but it has not and it never will. He will learn that in the days to come.
We cannot say that 16 is the time. Similarly, we cannot say that 14 is the time. We should be trying to save young men and young boys from going down the homosexual road. We should be bringing them to the joys of true marriage and raising a family. We should dedicate ourselves not to the destruction of young boys but to their deliverance. They need to be delivered.
I was in my office for a moment between the two debates this evening when the phone rang. It was a gay rights lobbyist. He started to tell me a story. He said that,


at 12, he discovered that he was different from other people; that he was homosexual. I asked him one question, "When you were 12, did you follow every impulse that you had?" He said, "Certainly not." I then pointed out to him that it is the duty of society to persuade, to educate and to seek to bring those who have that problem to a place of deliverance.
Some people say, "No one ever changes; we were born this way; and this is the way that we have to remain." That is not true. Homosexuals have been converted from homosexuality and some of them have good marriages and are bringing up families. I know that from personal pastoral experience. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said that the time when we must work is the time before they are crystallised. We have a responsibility and an opportunity tonight.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, with a swipe of her hand, dismissed the Hebrew scriptures, the Christian scriptures and Almighty God. That was just with a wave of her hand. Those of us who have been at the coal face, as it were, of our young people and who have been working with them—there are 1,200 young people in my church and I know what I am talking about—know the difficulties and the temptations. It is my prayer for them that they will learn the "more excellent way", the joy of having a happy marriage, the joy of bringing up their own families and the joy of living in normality, not in abnormality. I hope that hon. Members keep that point in mind as they vote tonight.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Rev. Ian Paisley) made the surprising assertion that people do not change. That is certainly not the view that is expressed in the gospels. The gospels speak of the sinner that repenteth. I hope that, in his consideration of these matters and the mosaic beliefs of the Judaeo-Christian morality which underlies our law, the hon. Gentleman will concede in his heart that it is not necessary for that law to be underpinned by the criminal law of this country and that the criminal law today does not protect our young people from the greatest scourge that modern society has known, the threat of AIDS.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) read a passage from the advice of the Health Education Authority. What he did not read was the advice of that Government-appointed body, which has told the Committee that it believes that it is hampered in its job by its inability to speak to those people——

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first new clause relating to the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The Committee proceeded to a Division; but the Tellers in the Aye lobby having left the doors before all the Members wishing to do so had voted, THE CHAIRMAN directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 307.

Division No. 136]
[10.23 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Alton, David


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashby, David





Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Bayley, Hugh
Galloway, George


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gapes, Mike


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gerrard, Neil


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Tony
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gunnell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hain, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hall, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hendry, Charles


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Heppell, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jamieson, David


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Janner, Greville


Dafis, Cynog
Jenkin, Bernard


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Sir Russell


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Devlin, Tim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dowd, Jim
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Khabra, Piara S.


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kilfoyle, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Enright, Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Etherington, Bill
Leighton, Ron


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Litherland, Robert


Fishburn, Dudley
Livingstone, Ken






Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


MacKay, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Simpson, Alan


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alan
Stern, Michael


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wallace, James


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walley, Joan


O'Hara, Edward
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wilson, Brian


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Audrey


Purchase, Ken
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mrs. Marjorie Mowlam and Mr. Andrew Rowe.


Reid, Dr John





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendell, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Benton, Joe


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Blunkett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boswell, Tim


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John


Bell, Stuart
Callaghan, Jim





Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hannam, Sir John


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Cryer, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dixon, Don
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eastham, Ken
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
McCrea, Rev William


Faber, David
Macdonald, Calum


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
McGrady, Eddie


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Forman. Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Maginnis, Ken


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Major, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mallon, Seamus


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mudie, George


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael






Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stephen, Michael


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stewart, Allan


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Streeter, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Redmond, Martin
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Waterson, Nigel


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Welsh, Andrew


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Willetts, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wolfson, Mark


Spearing, Nigel
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Sir Keith
Wright, Dr Tony


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Bill Walker.


Sproat, Iain



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then put the Question necessary to dispose of another new clause relating to the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain which had been selected by him.

New Clause 5

AGE AT WHICH HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL

'.—(1) In section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for "twenty-one" in both places where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(2) In section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (homosexual offences), for "twenty-one" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "eighteen".
(3) This section shall come into force on the date this Act is passed.'.—[Sir Anthony Durant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 427, Noes 162.

Division No. 137]
[10.37 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Aitken, Jonathan
Cohen, Harry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Allen, Graham
Congdon, David


Alton, David
Connarty, Michael


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Couchman, James


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cryer, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Cummings, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Barron, Kevin
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Dafis, Cynog


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I


Bennett, Andrew F.
Denham, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Body, Sir Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dowd, Jim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyes, Roland
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Elletson, Harold


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Butterfill, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Byers, Stephen
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fishburn, Dudley


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Forth, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fraser, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Sam


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward 


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gerrard, Neil






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Knox, Sir David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gordon, Mildred
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Gorst, John
Leighton, Ron


Graham, Thomas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Lidington, David


Gunnell, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hague, William
Litherland, Robert


Hall, Mike
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hanley, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Hannam, Sir John
Luff, Peter


Hanson, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hardy, Peter
Lynne, Ms Liz


Hargreaves, Andrew
McAllion, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
McAvoy, Thomas


Harris, David
McFall, John


Haselhurst, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
MacKay, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
McKelvey, William


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Mackinlay, Andrew


Henderson, Doug
McLeish, Henry


Hendry, Charles
Maclennan, Robert


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
McMaster, Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hoey, Kate
McNamara, Kevin


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
McWilliam, John


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Madden, Max


Home Robertson, John
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Hood, Jimmy
Madel, Sir David


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mahon, Alice


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Malone, Gerald


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mandelson, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Marek, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Marland, Paul


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Maxton, John


Hume, John
Meacher, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Meale, Alan


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Michael, Alun


Hutton, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Healey)


Illsley, Eric
Milburn, Alan


Ingram, Adam
Miller, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Janner, Greville
Moate, Sir Roger


Jenkin, Bernard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Morgan, Rhodri


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mudie, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Murphy, Paul


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jowell, Tessa
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Norris, Steve


Keen, Alan
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
O'Hara, Edward


Key, Robert
Olner, William


Khabra, Piara S.
O'Neill, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Kirkwood, Archy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





Parry, Robert
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Patchett, Terry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Pawsey, James
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickles, Eric
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Pike, Peter L.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stewart, Allan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Randall, Stuart
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Raynsford, Nick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Thurnham, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tyler, Paul


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rooney, Terry
Walden, George


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Waller, Gary


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Willetts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilshire, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Richard Page and


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Tim Devlin.


Spellar, John





NOES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carttiss, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Day, Stephen


Bates, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy






Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Sir Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Ottaway, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fry, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Gale, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Galloway, George
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gill, Christopher
Powell, William (Corby)


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Godsiff, Roger
Richards, Rod


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Riddick, Graham


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Sackville, Tom


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harvey, Nick
Shersby, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hawksley, Warren
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heppell, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hicks, Robert
Sproat, Iain


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Horam, John
Steen, Anthony


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stephen, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Streeter, Gary


Jessel, Toby
Sumberg, David


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sweeney, Walter


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sykes, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Legg, Barry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Leigh, Edward
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lightbown, David
Tracey, Richard


Lord, Michael
Trend, Michael


McCartney, Ian
Trotter, Neville


McCrea, Rev William
Viggers, Peter


McGrady, Eddie
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maclean, David
Ward, John


Maginnis, Ken
Waterson, Nigel


Mallon, Seamus
Watson, Mike


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Marlow, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Andrew


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Whitney, Ray


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Merchant, Piers
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Iain
Yeo, Tim


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Monro, Sir Hector
Tellers for the Noes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Robert Spink.


Nelson, Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Nick Ainger be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Terry Rooney be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mesothelioma Deaths (Leeds)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. John Battle: It gives me no pleasure to return to the subject of lethal asbestos pollution in Armley in my constituency, which I first raised in the House on 25 November 1988 and again on 8 July 1992. Initially, I urged the Government to open a public inquiry into increasingly concentrated cases of people suffering and dying from mesothelioma—the deadly, asbestos-related cancer—in Armley. I spoke of people having no known previous history of contact with asbestos, other than having lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the J. W. Roberts asbestos factory in Canal road, before it closed in 1958.
In the debate on 25 November 1988, I was told by the then Minister of State, Department of Employment that sufferers or people whose relatives had died should try to obtain compensation by claiming damages at civil law. He urged my constituents to take legal action. Many have done so, and lawyers acting on behalf of mesothelioma victims have tried to get Roberts's parent company, Turner and Newall of Manchester—now Turner and Newall plc—into court, to challenge that company over asbestos pollution of the neighbourhood, causing suffering and death.
As I spelt out from the testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the time, local people living in Arley place, Nunnington terrace and attending the nearby Armley Clock primary school can all recall the Roberts' factory blowing out asbestos dust in huge quantities day and night. At times, a layer of lethal snow-like substance covered the streets, pavements and window ledges. Hundreds of residents in the surrounding terraced streets, which run right up against the factory walls, regularly encountered dust from the factory. Its lethal legacy for people who lived in the neighbourhood has been more than 40 recorded deaths of mesothelioma and asbestos-related cancers. Since I first raised the matter in the House, many more people have suffered and died. We still seem to be no closer to calling the company to account for what has happened.
In his reply on 28 November 1988, the then Minister of State, Department of Employment conceded that the situation could be complicated by the time lag and the fact that the firm may no longer be in business. That was an easy mistake for him to make, for, as recently as 22 March 1993, the chairman of T and N plc, Mr. Colin Hope, in reply to a letter from the chairman of the local Armley asbestos campaign, which is fighting the pollution blight currently overhanging their 836 homes, had the nerve to state:
As you know, the factory in question was not owned or operated by this Company. It was owned and operated by a company known as J. W. Roberts Limited ("JWR"). JWR ceased production at that factory in 1958/59, and vacated and sold the premises shortly thereafter. Although JWR continued in business for some time after leaving the Armley site, the company ceased to trade over twenty years ago.
I am aware of the various comments and allegations that have been made about JWR's Armley factory, particularly as the source of the contamination to which you refer. Those comments and allegations are not accepted. In any event, they relate to the period when JWR's Armley factory was still in operation, over thirty five years ago. Given the state of medical and scientific knowledge in the years prior to 1959, it is not believed that any legal liability would arise out of the matters alleged.


Although the chairman may cynically disown the company, I have detailed correspondence from 11 March 1964 in which the same T and N plc sought to convince Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes that, for tax purposes, J. W. Roberts of Armley was still in business as an integral part of T and N and should be taken into account when calculating tax reductions. Is it too cynical to suggest that JWR is counted in only for profits, but discounted when it comes to its responsibility for local lives? Nor is it true that the chairman should give the impression that
Given the state of medical and scientific knowledge in the years prior to 1959
the company did not know the dangers of asbestos. I have referred in previous debates to factory inspectorate reports dating as far as back as 1849, which provided the first warnings that exposure to asbestos could mean danger to health and premature deaths.
In March 1928, Dr. H. De Carle Woodcock, a well-known lung specialist, drew attention at the inquest of Walter Leadbetter of Aviary Mount in Armley to the inhalation of asbestos dust as the cause of fibrosis of the lungs. In the late 1920s, Dr. Grieves—the local doctor—undertook a particular study of patients working at the factory. That thesis is still available in Edinburgh university. Not only is it historically inaccurate to suggest that the dangers of asbestos were not known before the factory closed, as the previous Minister suggested in response to me in 1988, but, more significantly, T and N itself knew. Moreover, the company itself commissioned research into the dangers and then covered up that research for years in order to protect its business interests.
The company resisted the introduction of the 1931 asbestos industry regulations, as is set out in a letter of 30 December 1932. Mr. Turner wrote to Mr. Newall suggesting that the company
take a small risk by stretching the regulations to suit our own ends.
By the late 1940s, the company was actively deleting references to any link between carcinoma of the lung and asbestosis. Thus, as the company's own extant records show, the death from asbestosis of Mr. Wren in 1947 was expunged from the asbestos case files. The company's lawyers were more concerned to ward off compensation claims than to face up to the deadly truth about its product.
In 1954, the company's medical adviser, Dr. Knox, joined forces with Professor Richard Doll of the Medical Research Council to produce a study on the risks to asbestos workers of lung cancer. That research was funded by Turner and Newall, but proved too devastatingly sensitive for the company to publish. An internal company memo challenges the conclusions as
not supported by adequate evidence".
Dr. Knox was instructed to tell Professor Doll that the research could not be published even in The Lancet medical journal. Professor Doll's reply reads:
Dear Dr. Knox,
I was shocked to hear of the decision of your board not to approve publication of our proposed paper. I feel that any positive findings with regard to the cause of cancer must be made available to all research workers in the subject. I would not have undertaken the work in the first place had I imagined that there would be any attempt made to limit the dissemination of scientific data.
That was four years before the Roberts factory closed in 1958. For 48 more months, the lethal asbestos dust was spewed on to the streets of Armley. Four more sets of first-year pupils started school at Armley Clock primary and played in a playground covered in that dust.
It is just not true that the dangers were not known to medical science at the time. They were, and they were researched by Turner and Newall itself, which effected a cover-up. Moreover, internal company memos in the 1960s make it plain that acknowledging any causal connection between asbestosis and carcinoma of the lung would
make settlements both more difficult and expensive".
In its own words, the company contrived to
ward off the evil day
when the dangers would threaten the profits of the operation. In other words, the mesothelomia and asbestos connection was known well before the 1960s—as earlier debates on this matter have seemed to suggest.
I know all this to be true because of the documentation that I have cited—and much more which I should like to put on the record—which comes from Turner and Newall's own depository. In the light of previous responses in letters from the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Skelmersdale, and the former Minister of State, Department of Employment, who responded to an earlier debate, I urge the Minister to allow me to place that documentation in the House of Commons Library. I have it in microfiche form so it will not take up too much room. It is important that both the Minister and her Department and many others interested in and concerned about the issue should be able to study the information for themselves. That truth must be released.
In the debate of 8 July 1992, I referred to the problems of disclosure—of legally forcing the company to disclose all that it knew and knows. As a result of the freedom of information laws in the United States, American lawyers representing the Chase Manhattan bank, which is claiming against Turner and Newall for spraying asbestos in its Manhattan headquarters, have since 1987 gained legal access to all Turner and Newall's United Kingdom files. They have copied more than a million documents. The problem is that no such access is available here in Britain, even though I could go to a library in New York and read the material.
Here, despite Ministers' advice back in November 1988, it has taken almost three years of legal wrangling to get a disclosure in the court. A district judge first ordered T and N to disclose some categories of document back in July 1991. On 11 September 1992, Mr. Justice Laws insisted that a further four categories of document, including all those related to the knowledge of the hazard of asbestos dust and to the layout and the processes of the Roberts factory, be disclosed.
Turner and Newall put in for permission to appeal in March 1993. That appeal was heard on 9 December 1993. At the Court of Appeal, the Turner and Newall banisters said in court that they conceded finally that they ought to drop their appeal. That means that between September 1992 and December 1993, at estimated court costs of £25,000 to the victim clients, the entire legal process was stalled.
Nor is the matter settled yet, because on 8 February, Penningtons solicitors, on behalf of Turner and Newall plc, applied for their time for the compliance to be extended until 1 May 1994. One may think that that is reasonable, but I know that the company lawyers have submitted a detailed affidavit of 4 February 1994 spelling out that, as they are to put all their records on computer and are to use an American company to do it, it would be too difficult for them to comply with that order. They said that the preliminary search work and drawing up of computer


specifications cannot be completed until the beginning of July and that the real process of making the documentation available may not happen until 1995.
I argue that this is a company cynically playing for time to ward off what it referred to as the "evil day" when it will have to face public challenges on what it knew about the dangers to the local people of blowing asbestos dust into the neighbourhood of Armley.
Significantly and tragically, a key victim, Mr. David Young, died in December. He went to his death determined to call Turner and Newall plc to account, and, as he said,
to prevent anything like this happening again".
Tragically, he leaves no one to take over the fight for his case. Another key test case is of a person who is not well, already 70 years old and is fighting on behalf of her husband who died as a result of mesothelioma.
Before Christmas, I visited a widow who has an income just above the level necessary to qualify for legal aid. She and her family cannot afford to employ lawyers to fight for compensation for her deceased husband and others who have died. It would cost too much. She therefore depends on others getting the company into court.
Turner and Newall pulled out of Armley in 1958, but in a classic case of exported pollution, opened under the name of Hindustan Ferodo in Ghatkopar in Bombay, India. That asbestos dust pollution continues to this day in India. Turner and Newall is a major, multinational group currently valued at £1·2 billion. Its shares on the stock exchange are at an all-time peak. I have already launched a campaign urging shareholders at least to question in what they are investing. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to take seriously and publish a report on the work of Professor Peto, who predicts that deaths from asbestosis and mesothelioma are about to escalate on a scale massively underestimated by the Health and Safety Executive in the past. While Lloyd's may be nervous about the insurance claims implications, the tragic reality is that hundreds more people will be dying needlessly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), not only on securing the debate, but on the persistence with which he has regularly made his case and on the way in which he has represented his constituents. I am aware that there is a high incidence of the disease in his constituency and they can feel well represented by his efforts.
I also welcome to the debate the other hon. Members with an interest, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). I have not done justice to one or two; I also welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). Of course we will study very carefully anything that the hon. Member for Leeds, West sends us or places in the Library. I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman's microfiche information.
I want now to consider two particular matters and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in warning me

that he was going to raise them, particularly as the first issue does not directly concern my Department, but is more the province of the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, I will do my best to make some preliminary comments on disclosure of information.
I appreciate the hon. Member's concern about the difficulties of obtaining evidence held by defendants. However, under English law, the duty to disclose documents can be very onerous on both parties in a given case. A party is generally required to disclose all non-privileged documents that are, or have been, in his possession, custody or power relating to the questions in the action. The test of what is relevant is very wide. It is taken to include any document leading to a train of inquiry. Moreover, the obligation is a continuing one—all relevant documents must be disclosed whenever they come into a party's possession.
With regard to companies, a parent company may be obliged to disclose documents in the possession of its subsidiaries, although that is a question of fact in each case. The court will look to see whether the subsidiary is under the unfettered control of the parent company.
There are court procedures to ensure that a party complies with those obligations. For example, the court can order a party to swear an affidavit verifying that he has disclosed all relevant documents.
The obligation to disclose is, of course, subject to a number of limitations and exceptions. In particular, privileged documents, such as correspondence between a party and the party's lawyers, need not be disclosed.
Some of the issues relating to disclosure are extremely complex and much depends on the facts of each case. I cannot hypothesise about how the rules might apply in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I will undertake to ensure that his concerns, his comments in the debate and any comments that he wishes to make to me in supplementary correspondence, will be most faithfully referred to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor for his comments.
The hon. Gentleman referred almost at the end of his excellent speech to the Peto report. Professor Peto is an eminent epidemiologist who has provided much insight into the nature of certain diseases caused by exposure to substances in the past. Mesothelioma is typical of these, associated as it is with exposure to asbestos decades ago.
Professor Peto first publicly aired his concern over the increasing rise in mesothelioma deaths last August. On that occasion, he estimated that the number of deaths could rise as high as 5,000 per year. However, earlier this year he revised that estimate to
as high as 3,000 per year by 2020".
When he subsequently appeared in an item on the same subject on the BBC's "Breakfast News", on 2 February 1994, he further revised his predicted figure down to 2,000. He has yet to publish his views on those figures.
Professor Peto's predictions are based on figures supplied to him in mid-1993 from the national mesothelioma register which is maintained by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is in the course of an in-depth study of the figures, but provisional results suggest that estimated future mesothelioma death rates, although serious, are unlikely to reach the levels predicted by Professor Peto.
The HSE has looked at the mesothelioma rates in people born in five-year periods, up to the group born between 1955 and 1959, to establish whether those born more


recently are less likely to suffer from mesothelioma. It is not possible to look at younger groups, because the time taken for the disease to develop means that very few cases have so far occurred among them.
The HSE's studies show that men born between 1940 and 1944 have the highest risk of developing mesothelioma at a given age. For those born later, the risk decreases, and it decreases quite markedly for those born after 1948.
The HSE estimates that the peak annual death toll from mesothelioma is likely to be at least 1,500, probably reached between the years 2010 and 2020. However, to that figure must be added the deaths due to other asbestos-related diseases—asbestosis and asbestos-related lung cancer. The combined total of all fatalities due to asbestos exposures is already estimated to exceed 3,000 per year, and it could rise to between 5,000 and 6,000.
Professor Peto was not fully aware of those trends when he made his earlier forecasts. The HSE has now provided him with some additional data, and his later predictions are now closer to those of the HSE. I mention those facts not to belittle what the hon. Gentleman has said about the seriousness of the issue but, rather, to record the seriousness as currently perceived by the HSE.
Although there is understandable public concern about current deaths from mesothelioma and future estimates, it is very important to be sure that the lessons of the past have been learned, that current workers are effectively protected and that conditions giving rise to the disease are a thing of the past.
The younger group—those aged under 40—now showing a decreased mesothelioma rate would in the main have been first exposed to asbestos after the introduction of stricter and more comprehensive regulations and after the voluntary industry ban, in the late 1960s, on the use of blue asbestos, the type most closely associated with mesothelioma. The mesothelioma mortality figures therefore suggest a reduced risk after those measures were introduced.
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the extensive measures that were introduced in the 1980s, following the report of the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on asbestos, to bring an end to asbestos-related diseases—measures such as the formal prohibition of blue and brown asbestos and the licensing of asbestos removal contractors. Because of the long latency period between first exposure to asbestos and the diagnosis of mesothelioma, the current figures, as publicised by Professor Peto, cannot tell us anything about the effect of that legislation and industrial practice since 1980.
Professor Peto has also expressed concern about the number of younger men, particularly in the building industry, who are currently contracting the disease. Such people could have had significant exposure to asbestos because of its widespread use in construction in the 1960s and 1970s. Much of that asbestos is still in place, and Professor Peto is rightly concerned that building workers might still be at risk today.
The Government and the HSE fully share Professor Peto's concerns. Although his remarks were based on anecdotal evidence, the HSE's preliminary analysis of deaths from mesothelioma in the 1980s shows a relatively high incidence among occupations such as electricians, heating and ventilation installers and carpenters. The HSE is now discussing with Professor Peto the scope of a possible study which could reveal a fuller analysis of the occupational history of younger people who are now developing mesothelioma. The purpose of that study would be to identify whether any further specific action needs to be taken.

Mr. Battle: Will that study include people who might have contracted mesothelioma but might have had no history of working in any of those occupations? Will their histories be traced, or will the study concentrate on electricians, plumbers, joiners and so on who had regular contact?

Miss Widdecombe: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the precise terms of reference, but I understand that it will be a fairly comprehensive study. I shall specify what is envisaged so that the hon. Gentleman has the right information.
Controlling risks from asbestos remains a high priority for HSE inspectors, who now demand a high level of awareness by industry and continue to maintain a vigorous enforcement policy of current controls. Inspectors are finding that current legislation provides an effective framework for enforcement and control of activities that could expose workers to asbestos.
I rehearse that evidence because, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House, it is important to stress that the risk is fully recognised and that all possible measures are being taken to protect workers today and in future. I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on raising this very important issue. If there is anything further that he would like from me, I invite him to meet me in the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.